19. October 2008 by Rev Young.

 I have been holding this article for the “right time” to publish this information.  It seems that now is the time.  When I first read the article, my attention immediately went to the picture of the boy.  In this article, and the articles that I have found published on the web, there was very little mentioned about the boy.  There is no mention about his family, about motive, about intention, about other suspects that were investigated.  Nothing.  Only the stark statement about his arrest and the charge against him. 

Read the article, watch the video that follows which was released by the Equal Justice Initiative and I will be back with you after the video.

Sunday, September 28, 2008 Teen charged with killing father Updated: 09/26/2008 06:55 AMBy: Jim Gibbons

ONEIDA COUNTY, N.Y. — Back in January, Joseph J. Giacona Jr. was murdered in his home in Vernon. Now, after an eight month long investigation, police have made an arrest and it is someone very close to home.

Thirteen-year-old Joseph Giacona III was arrested Thursday morning and charged in the murdering of his father.

In January, Joseph J. Giacona Jr. was found shot in the head in his Vernon home. Police say he was asleep on a couch at the time he was killed.  ‘State Police investigation at the scene revealed no indication of a struggle in the residence, no signs of forced entry and nothing missing from the home. The only weapons located in the home were found in a gun cabinet,’ said Major Donald DePass, Troop D Commander. The investigation was turned over to an Oneida County grand jury earlier this month after nearly eight months of examination. Because there were no eyewitnesses, the information for the case is based off a collection of facts, which is why it took such a long time to process.

‘It was imperative that the state police conduct and exhaustive and intensive investigation following up every possible lead and every possible theory with respect to this case,’ said Kurt Hameline, Oneida County Assistant District Attorney.

Giacona III had placed the 911 call the day of his father’s death. He has now been indicted on murder in the second degree and he will be tried as an adult in Oneida County Court.  ‘If convicted of murder in the second degree, a maximum sentence would be life imprisonment. The court would have to set a minimum of no less than five, no greater than nine,’ said Hameline.  Giacona III did plead not guilty in Oneida County Court Thursday morning. A pretrial conference has been set for Friday, October 3rd.
(Latest information:  Pre-trial has been moved to Movember1,2008).

The only saving grace in this young man’s story is that in the state of New York he cannot receive a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole.  In my home state, he would. 

It is Cruel and Unusual Punishment to sentence a 13 or 14 year old to life (death) in prison.  More to the point, it is Cruel and Unusual Punishment for us to sentence ANY of our young people to Life in Prison.  While we can catch your attention and arouse your righteousness over this boy and the children in the video, we should be able to do the same concerning all the boys and girls serving life in prison. 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17………they are all kids.  They all have the same look of innocence.  They all deserve a chance.  I urge you to advocate against mandatory sentencing laws, laws that allow children to be prosecuted and sentenced as adults and laws that cause children to serve adult time in adult prisons.  I urge you to support HR 4300 (www.hr4300.com), which gives US a chance to undo the harm that has been done and give these kids a chance at LIFE. 

Thank you, Equal Justice Initiative (www.eji.org) , for battling on behalf of these children and for delivering such a stark message.

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

15. October 2008 by Rev Young.

While Lupe clearly outlined the problems with Proposition 6 in California, I am going to present a piece of local legislation for Colorado that we need to carefully examine as voters and I ask you to look at your own proposed legislation before voting this year.  I am sure that you will find similar pieces of legislation on your local ballots.  I ASK YOU TO READ YOUR BALLOTS AND FIND OUT THE ISSUE BEFORE VOTING IN YOUR STATE.

In Colorado, and specifically El Paso County, we are being confronted with a piece of legislation called 1 A labeled “for a Safer Community”.  While there are pieces of this county question that I personally would approve of, they are tied with other measures that I do not approve of.  The county question would address the ability of the county to protect portions of the population (specifically number 8):  Regional Child and Adult protection programs which shall be used to investigate prosecute, treat and prevent abuse and neglect of children and /or adults who are elderly and/or disabled in El Paso County.  However, the rest of the county question is directed to the building, expanding and strengthening of the office of the District Attorney, county corrections facilities, judicial offices and sheriff and police departments. 

This all sounds good in theory, because we want those facilities to be in good repair.  We would also like to see another work release facility in this county.  The problem comes when we tie those needs to the expansion of prison beds and the expansion of the prosecutors office.  If we are to enforce change in our current laws, causing law makers to re-examine the tough on crime policies that have caused the explosion in prison populations, we are going to have to send a clear message.  “NOT WITH OUR MONEY.”  We have to let them know, through our voting process, that we are tired of funding prison expansion programs and tough on crime policies.  We have to let them know that we are holding them to account to find real solutions to drug and alcohol offences, recidivism rates and juvenile crime policies that cause our young people to be incarcerated rather than reformed.  We have to let them know that we are no longer willing to fund a $734,000,000 Department of Corrections budget (Colorado proposed) without a clear plan on how to break the cycle of crime, educate and reform offenders and return them to a productive life that benefits our communities. 

In Colorado Springs, the county corrections community started a campaign for funding early in the year by enlisting local media to report on the potential danger that over crowding was causing in our county jail.  They interviewed guards, corrections officials and showed the current conditions while they labeled them a “time bomb”.  This put the issue of safety into the mind of voters.  

The real issue is the fact that we have very little in the way of community corrections, supervised sentences, house arrest or restorative justice practices in this community.  Our answer, as with most other municipalities, was put them in jail.  This has created a whole list of new problems.  Loss of job for the offender, economic hardship for the families, the effect of finding new jobs once released and the horrible conditions and treatment that has impacted the offender during his stay at the county facility.

I recently sat and talked with a 77 year old man that was given a jail term for violating a restraining order that was issued because he continually spoke out against the local school district.  While he was incarcerated he told me that he witnessed some of the worst conditions he had ever seen.  He related to me that one night at the change of shift (around midnight) the new sargent came on duty and announced over the loud speaker “  I am ____ and I am now in charge and I am not going to take any of your sh–!” 

We have continued to give them money without accountability, we have continued to give them the power to make laws without questioning their motives or the facts.  We have continued to fund things that we should not fund and neglect the things we should be attending to.  We are responsible.  In El Paso County we have a severe budget crisis as we do in the state of Colorado.  Could it be that we should have paid more attention?  Yes. 

This year……..think, ask, question and review…..BEFORE you vote.

Posted in Legal News, Prison Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

15. October 2008 by Rev Young.

I am currently working on the next segment of “The Profit in Locking Up Our Kids” series.  It is taking quite a bit of research as a try to follow the paper trail for a multi billion dollar industry. 

In the mean time, this article came across my e-mail and I find it very timely.  We are all trying to prepare ourselves to vote responsibly in the upcoming election ( I assume you all are voting RIGHT?).  I believe that in every state in the United States, voters are being presented a proposition, amendment or ballot initiative that would lend some kind of support to expanding police departments, build court houses, build county jails, change criminal justice laws or all of the above.  I caution you to really think these pieces of legislation through.  I am going to publish this article which is written by Guadalupe Garcia.  Lupe has worked as a juvenile counselor in California but does not write this article on behalf of her facility or position.  Rather she writes this article from her observations over the course of her career and the impact that our laws have had on our children.  Thank you for your work Lupe.

Proposition 6 or The Safe Neighborhood Act Is Not the Answer!In November Californians will vote on an anti-crime measure sponsored by State Senator George Runner called Proposition 6 or The Safe Neighborhood Act which proposes to bring gang activity under control and punish individual gang members severely. It is the opinion of this writer that the new proposition is more of the same “tough on crime” policies that have burdened California’s budget and contributed to the socio-economic disparities represented in the prison industrial system. In short it represents a step back in juvenile justice because it facilitates the channeling of youth into the adult system. This adult system has proven defected and non-rehabilitative with recidivism rates as high as 70% despite ever-increasing monetary investments. Prop. 6 was written by Mike Reynolds, the same author of the “3 Strikes and Your Out” passed by voters back in 1994. With strong financial backing from special interest groups including real estate developers, bail agents, manufacturers of GPS monitoring devices and surveillance services, Prop 6 promises to make our neighborhoods safer and carries specific implications for youths entering the juvenile system.Under the proposed measure:• Any 14 year old who is convicted of a “gang-related” felony would be found unfit for Juvenile court and thus be prosecuted as an adult. • Removing or disabling a monitoring device that was issued as part of sentencing will become a criminal act. • Recipients of subsidized housing must submit an annual criminal background check for every member of the household, including youths. If anyone in the home is found to have a recent drug or violent criminal conviction the housing subsidies would be withdrawn and the entire family loses their housing.   Cristina Gomez of the Burns Institute/The Community Justice Network for Youth calls the initiative “predatory legislation” because it applies specifically to the young and lower income communities of color. “We feel like this is just one more initiative that is going to put the state into a state of bankruptcy…[and] it isn’t a move in a positive way to provide our communities or our youth who need intervention and prevention programs… We know that the implications of this will result in more youth being funneled into the prison industrial complex system.”Youths as young as 14 may already be found unfit for Juvenile court and prosecuted as adults under Prop. 21 which California voters passed in 2000. A youth must fit a five point criteria before he/she is found unfit for juvenile court. Some of the criteria are the degree of criminal sophistication, previous delinquent history and the circumstances and gravity of the offense.   In the event that Prop. 6 passes a youth as young as 14 need not fit the five criteria of Prop 21 but need only be found guilty of a “gang-related” felony. Once in the adult system the youth is now subjected to the harsh gang enhancement laws that were put into affect during the late 1980’s. Michael Kresser, executive director of the 6th District Appellate Program, says, “Prosecutors are bringing in gang experts who say that any criminal activity increases the reputation of the gang, thus meeting the ‘benefit’ standard. This turns any crime done by someone labeled as a gang member into a 186.22 (CA penal code defining longer sentences due to the gang nature of the charge) even if the crime had nothing to do with a gang.”The ease in which offenders could be labeled as gang members provides unfair increases in sentences which in turn creates unfair burdens on Californian’s who must pay more for the rising costs housing prisoners for longer periods of time.By passing Prop. 6 a younger crop of offenders will be funneled into a legal system already categorizing them as career criminals due to their “gang participation” despite being as young as 14. Plus since the majority of the labeled gang members come almost exclusively from lower income communities of color, further lowering the standard for being found unfit for juvenile court the newer crop will only increase the documented racial disparities in the prison industrial system. Prop. 6 has further implications in that if a youth is found guilty of a drug or violent crime his/her family may lose their subsidized housing. Presently if the youth in the household does not attend school or gets in trouble, per Section 8 the rent is raised. If the youth is incarcerated but is attending school in juvenile hall then the family’s housing is not necessarily threatened but if the youth is found to be an adult and convicted of a drug or violent crime then per Prop 6 the entire family lose their housing. The family of the youth offender will now find themselves in further economic strife. If the youth serves his sentence and after release attempts to return home, his return may not be convenient due to his criminal background. There is  then the possibility of the youth becoming homeless.If the socio-economic disparities do not manage to raise concern with the voters of California then perhaps the economical projections of the proposal will raise a red flag. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office has determined that the net state cost for implementing the initiative is a half billion dollars annually for increased costs of criminal justice programs, prison and parole operations. Can Californian’s realistically pay such a high price tag especially when previous investments in “tough on crime” laws have proven to yield such poor results in a rehabilitative sense? What’s more early intervention programs risk being put on the back burner as monetary priority is allotted to incarceration. We can all concur that the gang’s within are communities present a problem we need to address. The choice in November is whether Californians choose to continue with heavy-handed policies and pass Prop 6 or opt for a more restorative justice approach. Under the restorative justice model the emphasis on punishment does not exceed the needs and concerns of the victims, the wrongdoer and the community at large. The “tough on crime” approach carries an expensive price tag while failing to rehabilitate our young people. It also harms our lower income communities by continuing to drain resources for preventative programs and carries on the practice of labeling our young offenders as violent and unredeemable beings.                                      

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »