Info

You are currently browsing the A Voice for Juvenile Prison Reform weblog archives for November, 2009.

November 2009
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
Categories
Latest Postings
Links
Archives
Meta

Archive for November 2009

Prison Over Crowding/Sentencing Reform

30. November 2009 by Rev Young.

I have been directing the content of this blog toward the humanity that should be considered when introducing or reconsidering our current criminal justice practices.  I believe that we can argue the validity or irrelevance of any legislation and that each side of the argument will cancel the other. 

The truth is, that in most cases, this country has become so embroiled in the argument “for or against” any presented solutions that we have rendered ourselves useless.  We accomplish nothing.  We, as political parties, advocacy organizations and spcial interest groups, have become so indigent that we have forgotten our main purpose.  That purpose should always be focused on creating community and a country that is strong and focused in it’s care for individual constituents.

When we look at the prison over crowding issue and the sentencing reform issues, the rhetoric immediately turns to crime vs punishment.  It turns to consequence and and punitive measures.  I believe there is a better alternative.

One of the main reasons we have experienced a population explosion in our prisons is because of our “War on Drugs”.  By the way, we have not won that war.  We have not even impacted the drug culture, save the mass incarceration of users. 

There was a time when we counted a drug user as someone who was in need of intervention and rehabilitation.  I know…..I was raised during the maturity of the drug culture in this country.  Many of my friends in high school and after high school, were drug users and some drug abusers.  I witnessed the effects of drugs on an individual life and also witnessed the aftermath of a “bad trip”. 

At that time in our history, we took these young people and placed them in treatment, rehabilitation and helped them to overcome their drug problem.  Once we declared war on the drug culture ( which was supposed to be directed at the drug cartels and the drug suppliers) we changed our stand and tolerance of drugs to include the user.

The question is whether or not those policy changes and laws that have been enacted are a benefit to our community.  We have taken the funds used for rehabilitation and treatment and directed the funds to prisons….human warehouses.  This action has resulted in long sentences, where individuals are housed without intervention and then released into a community that they no longer recognize.  We have disabled them further.

It would seem to me that our communities would benefit from treatment programs that last for a few years, resulting in changed behavior while equipping the individual to better succeed in our communities.  The cost is substantially lower and the benefit to the individual AND community is substantial.  We create success for the individual and the community prospers as a result.  That is also how I answer those who do not want to put the funds or the effort towards treatment and rehabilitation.  If we assist an individual so that he/she becomes a successful member of the community then he/she becomes a contributor and not a liability.

Read on to see what is being done to reform our laws:

PRISON OVERCROWDING: $700 million is too much; release nonviolent offenders early, panel says

Comments 17 | Recommend 2

November 21, 2009 3:21 PM

BILL VOGRIN

THE GAZETTE

Colorado prisons are overflowing with inmates, at a cost of nearly $700 million a year to taxpayers, in part due to mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, a panel of state lawmakers and sentence reform advocates said at a town hall meeting Saturday.

To ease the pressure on the state prison system, the 2010 General Assembly will be asked to pass a package of bills that would give judges discretion at sentencing to let some of those convicts out sooner.

The sentencing reform package also will include bills reducing penalties for possession of marijuana and other drugs. For example, possession of 4 ounces of marijuana would become a petty offense instead of a criminal misdemeanor. Possession of 8 to 16 ounces would be a misdemeanor under the bills, instead of a felony.

Similar reductions would apply to possession of small amounts of cocaine and methamphetamine and various prescription drugs, with the exception of “date-rape” drugs.

The package also will address DUI sentencing laws, perhaps raising penalties for habitual DUI convictions, said Christie Donner, executive director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition.

Donner was among seven panelists who spoke to a crowd of about 60 people at the Ruth Holley Branch of the Pikes Peak Public Library. The town hall meeting was sponsored by a pair of Colorado Springs Democrats: State Rep. Dennis Apuan and Sen. John Morse.

The lawmakers want sweeping changes to Colorado sentencing laws to reduce the prison population, save millions and create opportunities for ex-cons when it comes to jobs and substance abuse treatment.

Donner said the package of bills to be introduced by the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice is a first step.

“The commission is taking a comprehensive look at sentencing laws,” Donner said. “They just voted on 29 recommendations that will be submitted in bills to the 2010 Legislature. They represent the first phase of what will be several phases of sentencing reform.”

Though politically unpopular, reducing prison sentences is the only way to stem the rising tide of inmates, the panelists said.

They blamed the overcrowding on 1985 action by the General Assembly that doubled prison sentences across the board.

Since then, the state’s prison population has exploded, jumping from about 4,000 at the time to more than 23,000 inmates today. The cost of housing inmates has soared, as well, climbing from $57 million in 1985 to $677 million today.

Panelists asked the audience to pressure lawmakers to support reforms so there will be more money to help inmates make the transition back into society, get treatment for their addictions and training for jobs. They also want to make it harder to re-incarcerate felons for technical, or minor, parole violations.

They also want lawmakers to make it easier for ex-cons to find jobs by dialing back laws requiring many employers to conduct mandatory background checks.


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

Media Coverage of JLWOP

19. November 2009 by Rev Young.

Here are a smattering of articles and opinions that have been published on the issue of CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. 

Not just my opinion but the opinion of many across the country.  We all ask the same question “What are we doing with our kids?”

Media Coverage of JLWOP/Supreme Court Issue

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

Supreme Court Analysis JLWOP Hearing

19. November 2009 by Rev Young.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., made a strong — and repeated — effort on Monday to recruit a majority of the Supreme Court in favor of giving juveniles more chance to use their age to challenge life-without-parole prison terms, as an alternative to a flat constitutional bar against ever imposing that sentence.  With a number of Justices wondering where to draw an age line if the categorical approach were used, the Chief Justice’s initiative seemed to have a good chance of gaining adherents as the Court heard Graham v. Florida (08-7412) and Sullivan v. Florida (08-7621).

Lawyers for the two youths, who committed non-homicide crimes at age 16 and 13, sought to persuade the Court that the only way to deal constitutionally with no-release sentences for minor offenders was to declare all such sentences forbidden.  While there was much sympathy evident among some — not all — of the Justices for treating juveniles differently, it did not appear that there was a clearcut majority for taking away altogether the life-without-parole option even in cases where the victim of a youth’s crime did not die.

The Chief Justice’s alternative would apparently be a declaration that the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment required judges to take the offender’s youth into account in setting any sentence for a term of years, then judge whether that sentence was “proportional” both for an offender of that age and for the particular crime.  The question on how attractive that option might be — say, to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — was whether that would be a meaningful inquiry that would in reality give youths’ some chance of avoiding having the state give up on them entirely.

On another issue at stake, in the Sullivan case, whether the Court had authority even to hear that case on the constitutional question, the strongest hint was that the Court might find that Florida law had barred that appeal.  If so, that would not mean, however, that Joe Sullivan, the youth in that case, would not benefit from a ruling in the case of Terrance Graham providing some assurance that youth could be a decisive factor in long-term sentences for minors.

After the Chief Justice and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia had opened the questioning by commenting on the difficulty of drawing a specific constitutional line, Roberts then moved in with the suggestion that the Court not rule categorically — for either side — but rather go for a proportionality analysis.

The Chief Justice, noting that the Court in the Roper v. Simmons in 2005 decision had said that “death was different” but also that being a juvenile also was different, asked: “Wouldn’t it make sense to incorporate the consideration of juvenile status into the proportionality review? So that if you do have a case where it’s the 17-year-old who is one week shy of his eighteenth birthday and it the most grievous criime you can imagine, you can determine that in that case life without parole may not be disproportionate.”

Terrance Graham’s lawyer, Bryan S. Gowdy of Jacksonville, said that scientific studies accepted by the Court in Roper indicated that one cannot make a determination, before age 18, whether a juvenile will or not reform as he grows up.  The comment only produced more quibbling from the conservative Justices on how an arbitrary line could be justified.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor soon joined in to question what makes anyone more capable of reading the future development of a juvenile simply because he had passed his 18th birthday.  Gowdy said that the Court “had to draw the line somewhere,” and, in Roper, he said, the Court chose 18.  Justice Scalia quickly retorted: “Only if we accept a categorical approach.” Otherwise, he said, “we would not have to draw a line.”

The state of Florida’s lawyer, Solicitor General Scott D. Makar from Tallahassee opened his argument by contending that a categorical bar on life-without-parole for minors would run counter to trends in treating juveniles over past couple of decades, frustrating states in their attempts to deal with rising juvenile crime while still remaining sensitive to the needs of youthful offenders.  Soon, he, too, encountered the Chief Justice’s hostility to a categorical rule on the state’s side, that life-without-parole was always allowed.

After Makar had said that Florida acknowledged that youthful age “does matter,” Justice Sotomayor asked for help in drawing the line where life-without-parole would be permissible.  Would it be unconstitutional if the youth were only 10? she asked. If that is too early, she said, why would 14 or 15 not be too early?  Makar would only concede that “I think it [age] does matter.”  Sotomayor was not satisfied, next asking about a no-release sentence for a five-year-old.

Chief Justice Roberts interrupted to test on what legal basis Makar was suggesting that age does matter, and then suggested himself that it would be the Eighth Amendment.  And, once again, he suggested that, under that Amendment, one could “just say age has to be considered.”

Makar’s toughest questioner was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who sharply criticized Florida’s lack of any “proportionality” review under its own state laws, and drew unfavorable comparisons between state restrictions on juveniles on drinking, driving and marrying even while allowing sentencing as if they were adults.

The Sullivan case, argued section, brought some of the same exchanges, but was dominated by questions of whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.  Justice Ginsburg commented very early to Joe Sullivan’s lawyer, Bryan Stevenson, that “before you get to the particulars of this case, there is a serious question” about whether Florida law barred the challenge to the no-release sentence.

Several Justices said that, if the Court were to decide that the Roper decision was a death penalty-only case and thus did not apply to life sentences, then Florida’s “procedural bar” did, in fact, prevent Sullivan from making his challenge in 2007 to a sentence he received in 1989.  “You’re out of court” if Roper does not apply, Justice Scalia said.

When Stevenson did get a chance to discuss the merits, he sought to persuade the Court that, whatever line it might draw against life-without-parole for minors, it definitely should rule it out for 13-year-olds.  Once again, though, he encountered the Chief Justice’s apparent agenda.  “If we require consideration of age under the Eighth Amendment,” Roberts commented, “we avoid all these line-drawing problems.”

Makar, making a return appearance in the Sullivan case, had to spend much of his time trying to clear up confusion about how often the life-without-parole sentence is given to juvenile offenders, in Florida and elsewhere.  With Justice Stephen G. Breyer leading the questioning of the state’s lawyer, the difficulties of drawing age lines that would properly reflect the capacity for “moral responsibility” became more evident.

Breyer did draw from Makar the minimal concession that, if the Court were to rule in the Graham case that Roper did apply to no-release sentences, and that were made retroactive, then Sullivan would be allowed — under Florida law — to file a new challenge to his sentence.

The Court is expected to decide the case no earlier than January.


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

Continuing The Quest For True Justice

13. November 2009 by Rev Young.

This has been a very interesting week of events both nationally, and for me personally.  First of all the Supreme Court held hearings concerning Juvenile Life Without Parole in two very important cases.  The question is whether or not JLWOP can be imposed when held against the constitutional standard of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”.  These are very important cases and the Justices are faced with a very important decision.

Secondly, there has been much publicity surrounding these hearings and most organizations and media have taken advantage of this time to publicize their views.  This week I got the privilege to hear a young man speak, Dwayne Betts (A Question of Freedom from Penguin Publishing).  It is not the first time I have heard his story but this speech was even more compelling.  He told the story of how he landed in prison, what he did to further himself in prison through the influence of other inmates, and what he has become outside of prison.  Most looked at him as some kind of hero and he doesn’t like that.  He wanted everyone to know that he was not special, he was not the exception, he was just lucky enough to receive a sentence that afforded him a life after prison.  Inside the prison walls are men just like him.  They made mistakes, they caused harm and they are sorry.  They are sorry.  They don’t have the chance that Dwayne had, they will most likely die in prison.

I got to hear the Speaker of The House state that what we need to start providing is a way of redemption.  “When one of our children is beyond reach, we have failed as adults”.  And another quote that was equally as provoking “It is easier to raise good children than to repair broken men”. 

I had the opportunity to listen to my very good friend, Mary Ellen Johnson (The Pendulum Foundation), speak to a high school class at an Alternative High School.  She made room for me so that I could speak to them as well.  Our final statements to these young people were about how much we needed them and that they had the power to change this nation through their voice and their actions.

Third was the release of my new book (The Nehemiah Principle from Publish America) and the speaking opportunities that came to me this week.  I am not sure if many of you have paid much attention to who writes the articles in this blog, but I am a Reverend.  When most of the advocates for juvenile justice first met me, that came as quite a surprise to them.  They spend much of their time trying to speak to the conservative parties and get them to see from their perspective.  They have found much opposition in the Republican and Conservative camps and I was seen as the opposition…..until they heard me speak.

I have two other great reasons for the advocacy work that I do…..my son and my daughter.  I have a son serving 68 years in prison on a conspiracy plea agreement.  He went to jail when he was 17.  He had never been in trouble with the law, was the savior for many animals, loved to cook, loved me and took wonderful care of his disabled sister, Heidi.  None of the investigators for the prosecution or the prosecutors themselves ever looked at who my son was…..only the crime that was supposedly committed by his friend.  Guilt by association…..cost him his life.

The final event was an interview that I gave to a Wyoming organization that is working on a documentary film for their local PBS station.  The documentary was about juvenile justice and juvenile reform.  My sons story is very compelling, my thoughts and solutions to reform are not ordinary but my faith in the midst of this argument was the most compelling piece. 

Irregardless of your beliefs or religious practices, I believe that we all have common ground.  We all believe in the importance and sanctity of human life.  We are talking about our children.  Yes they have made horrible mistakes that have been very costly.  Yes they have broken the law and violated our trust.  Yes they have caused harm that cannot be undone and they come to us armed with the only thing they have……I’m Sorry.  We don’t give them the chance to say it publicly, to make amends for their behavior, we just throw them away. 

Dwayne Betts told the audience that if we would take a look at the lives of these children, we would see brokenness, addiction, abuse, neglect.  If we took a look, we could see that they are just human beings in need of intervention, education, direction, support and guidance.  We begrudge giving anything to someone who has violated our space or our trust.  Yet it is not only about giving to that person individually.  The success of each individual in our community causes our community to be successful.  If the poor among us has food, he doesn’t have to steal to feed his family.  If the poor among us can find work, they don’t have to invent ways to care for themselves.  If we have families, whether biological or care groups, then there is no need to find security and comfort in gangs. 

The book that I have written, “The Nehemiah Principle”, is based on the biblical model for rebuilding communities.  It is about social reform, about creating new models for organizations so that they can successfully support themselves and continue in their work.  It is about our individual responsibility to participate in government and community.  It is about restoring broken lives and broken communities. 

Before we can accomplish any of these things we must first learn to accept I’m Sorry and let that be enough so that we can move past our anger, our fear and our vindictive actions.  We can’t afford to continue building these monuments to our failure and we can’t afford to continue filling them with discarded lives.  Who knows what they could go on to accomplish?  Maybe we are holding, in our prisons, the persons who could solve many of our issues…..if they had the chance.

    nehemiah-cover-promo-web.jpg  available at www.publishamerica.net/product87483.html  and soon available in book stores everywhere.

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates, From Families of Juvenile Offenders | Print | No Comments »

A Sentence Too Cruel For Kids

13. November 2009 by Rev Young.

A sentence too cruel for kids

By Alan K. Simpson
Special to The Washington Post

Posted: 10/24/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

Rather than serving in the U.S. Senate for almost 20 years, or having so many other wonderful life experiences, I could have served a longer sentence in prison for some of the stupid, reckless things I did as a teenager. I am grateful to have gotten a second chance — and I believe our society should make a sustained investment in offering second chances to our youth.

When I was a teen, we rode aimlessly around town, shot things up, started fires and generally raised hell. It was only dumb luck that we never really hurt anyone. At 17, I was caught destroying federal property and was put on probation. For two years, my probation officer visited me and my friends at home, in the pool hall, at school and on the basketball court. He was a wonderful guy who listened and really cared. I did pretty well on probation. At 21, though, I got into a fight in a tough part of town and ended up in jail for hitting a police officer.

I spent only one night in jail, but that was enough. I remember thinking, “I don’t need too much more of this.”

I had a chance to turn my life around, and I took it. This term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether other young people get that same chance.

On Nov. 9, the court will hold oral argument in Sullivan vs. Florida and Graham vs. Florida, two cases that will determine whether it is constitutional to sentence a teenager to life in prison without parole for a crime that did not involve the taking of a life. There is a simple reason the criminal justice system should treat juveniles and adults differently: Kids are a helluva lot dumber than adults. They do stupid things — as I did — and some even commit serious crimes, but youths don’t really ever think through the consequences. It’s for this reason that every state restricts children from such consequential actions as voting, serving on juries, purchasing alcohol or marrying without parental consent.

The Supreme Court recognized the differences between teenagers and adults when it held a few years ago, in Roper vs. Simmons, that it was unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on defendants younger than 18. Locking up a youth for the rest of his life, with no hope for parole, is surely unconstitutional for the same reasons. The person you are at 13 or 17 is not the person you are at 30.

Everyone old enough to look back on his or her teenage years knows this.

Peer pressure is a huge part of youth behavior, whether one grows up in Washington, D.C., or Cody, Wyo. The guys will say, “Go get the gun. We’ll pick up just enough money for tonight.” And almost unthinkingly, you’ll do it. There is simply no way to know at the time of sentencing whether a young person will turn out “good” or “bad.” The only option is to bring him or her before a parole board — after some number of years — and give the person the chance to declare, “I’m a different person today” — and then prove it.

Parole boards can examine how youth offenders spent their time in prison. Did they read books or work in the library? Did they make furniture? Get a college degree? Those are critical questions for review.

We all know youths who have changed for the better. When I was a lawyer in Cody, the court sometimes appointed me to represent juvenile offenders, and parents who knew of my history often asked for help with their children. I once helped an 18-year-old who stole a car and drove it to Seattle. I later hired him as chief of staff for my Senate office.

I was lucky that the bullets I stole from a hardware store as a teenager and fired from my .22-caliber rifle never struck anyone. I was fortunate that the fires I set never hurt anyone. I heard my wake-up call and listened — and I went on to have many opportunities to serve my country and my community.

When a young person is sent “up the river,” we need to remember that all rivers can change course.

Alan K. Simpson, a Republican, was a U.S. senator from Wyoming from 1977 to 1996.



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

|