Moving Forward to a New Day

18. November 2008 by Rev Young.

We have finally moved past the elections!  There are many opinions on what happened with the election of Obama.  Have we made the best choice?  What will happen now?  What are the chances that we will see changes in juvenile policy?  Will this administration really bring much needed change to the social issues of this country?  All this remains to be seen.  Yet I must say that the nation truly celebrated when the winner of the election was announced.  If nothing else, we changed our attitude about the future.

Within 2 days of the election a Town Hall Meeting was held at Georgetown University entitled “A Call To Action for Juvenile Justice”.  This 2.5 hour conference presented the need for juvenile justice reform in its entirety.  Whether at risk youth, mental health, juvenile delinquency, juvenile incarceration, education, treatment.  The entire gammet of the issue was presented and covered.  This town hall meeting is being used to present a united front of advocacy organizations who are seeking change , to the incoming administration. 

There was an atmosphere of momentum, hope and action throughout the conference.  The committee co-chair was Professor Charles Ogletree (Harvard Law School) who is one of President-elect Obama’s top advisers.   In conjunction with this meeting, advocates were asked to submit reports or summaries of the specific issues they were working on.  Below you will find that document.  We believe that we have turned the corner in this battle and that we will see strong policy changes over the next two years. 

Submission by The Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children to the ABA’s Juvenile Justice Committee’s Town Hall Meeting November 6, 2008

Life without Parole for Youth Offenders in the United States in 2008

Youth (persons below the age of 18) can and do commit terrible crimes, causing enormous suffering to victims and their families. When youth commit such crimes, they should be held accountable, but in a manner that reflects their age and immaturity and their special capacity for rehabilitation. Instead, 39 US states and the federal government have tried teens who are too young to vote, buy cigarettes, or serve on the juries they appear before, and have sentenced them to juvenile life without parole (JLWOP). Life without parole means that a young person is sentenced to die in prison.

A sentence of juvenile life without parole is cruel, unfair, and unnecessary. It sends an unequivocal message to youth that they are beyond redemption. It erroneously presumes that allowing youth offenders a parole hearing (which is not a guarantee of release) would fail to protect public safety and be unfair to victims. It also ignores the differences between adults and children—differences we accept as a matter of common sense, and which science fully recognizes.

Recommendations

The United States must stop sentencing youth offenders to life without possibility of parole. Specifically, the Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children recommends:

To the Newly Elected President of the United States and the US Congress

                        Abolish the sentence of life without parole for youth charged with violating federal laws. Such legislation should include a retroactivity provision enabling youth offenders currently serving life without parole to have their cases reviewed by a court for re‐assessment and re‐sentencing to a sentence that includes the possibility of parole.

                        Pass HR 4300, or other legislation to condition federal funding of state programs upon the state’s elimination of life without parole sentences for youth offenders.

Life without Parole for Youth: A Nationwide Problem

According to Human Rights Watch:

􀂾 There are currently 2,484 persons in US prisons serving sentences of life without parole for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18.

􀂾 Nationally, black youth are serving life without parole at a per capita rate that is 10 times that of white youth.

􀂾 There are no youth serving JLWOP anywhere else in the world. Four youth serving life without parole sentences in US prisons; the pictures depict each of them within a few months of his or her arrest. They were (from left to right) age seventeen, fourteen, sixteen, and fifteen when they committed their crimes. © 2005 Private.

Youth serving JLWOP across the country are predominantly male (only 2.6 percent are female), and the majority are black (60 percent). Sixteen percent were fifteen or younger when they committed their crimes. Figure 1 (below) gives the state distribution of the 2,484 youth serving JLWOP sentences. In some states, a sentence of JLWOP is mandatory once a youth is convicted of certain crimes; in others, the sentencing judge has discretion. California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have the largest numbers of youth sentenced to JLWOP, and all but California impose the sentence on a mandatory basis.1

Figure 1 – State Distribution of 2,484 Juvenile Offenders Serving JLWOP2

State

Total

State Law

State

Total

State Law

1 In California, youth convicted of certain categories of murder are presumptively sentenced to JLWOP, since California law states that in such cases youth “shall be” sentenced to JLWOP unless a judge finds “good reason” to instead impose a sentence of 25 years to life.

2 Sources: State prison systems provided data directly to Human Rights Watch as of mid‐2004 (except that HRW used the National Corrections Reporting Program to obtain data for Virginia, and for Alabama, we used its inmate locator system). We updated data between mid‐2004 and 2008 using the following methods: state departments of corrections sent updated data directly to Human Rights Watch or to other organizations; post‐2004 press reports were checked against inmate records with state departments of corrections; and correspondence received by Human Rights Watch from youth offenders sentenced to life without parole was checked against press reports and state inmate records. The term “mandatory” means judges have no option other than to sentence youth offenders to JLWOP upon conviction for at least one type of offense. Most often that offense is first degree murder. State law researched by Human Rights Watch and updated by Connie de la Vega and Michelle Leighton, “Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice,” University of San Francisco Law Review, Spring 2008.

3 Sources: See Figure 1 above for JLWOP sentencing data. Population data extracted by Human Rights Watch from C. Puzzanchera, T. Finnegan, and W. Kang, National Center for Juvenile Justice, “Easy Access to Juvenile Populations Online: US Census Population Data,” State Population Data with Bridged Race Categories 2004, for ages 14‐17, http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ (accessed January 2, 2008). Certain states are not included in the above figure because of insufficient data. The ratios were calculated using rates per 10,000 population of youth age 14‐17 disaggregated by race and state.

Crimes That Can Lead to a Life without Parole Sentence

As youth and adult crime rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, politicians and the public feared they were being besieged by “super‐predators”—youth who repeatedly committed violent offenses. In response, states decided to try youth as adults and to send greater numbers of those convicted to adult prison, some with life without parole sentences. The actual profiles of youth sentenced to JLWOP show how misguided and unnecessary those decisions were.

                        The majority of youth sentenced to life without parole are first offenders. Prior to the crime for which they were sentenced to JLWOP, an estimated 59 percent had neither an adult criminal record nor a juvenile adjudication.

                        An estimated 26 percent of youth offenders were convicted of felony murder. These are crimes in which a teen who commits a non‐homicide felony such as robbery is held responsible for a codefendant’s act of murder that occurs during the course of the felony. State laws often do not require the teen to know that a murder will take place or even that the codefendant is armed.

                        Many teens serving JLWOP committed their crimes with adults. For example, in 70 percent of JLWOP cases in California in which a teen was acting with codefendants, at least one of the codefendants was an adult. And, in an estimated 56 percent of California cases in which a juvenile who received JLWOP had an adult codefendant, the adult received a more lenient sentence than the teen.

Racially Discriminatory Sentencing

Figure 2 – Ratio of Black to White Youth Serving JLWOP Sentences3

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.00South CarolinaNevadaAlabamaMississippiKentuckyLouisianaGeorgiaWashingtonMissouriFloridaArkansasOklahomaIowaMassachusettsMarylandMichianAll States *ArizonaColoradoNorth CarolinaNebraskaIllinoisWisconsinDelawareCaliforniaPennsylvaniaConnecticut

As shown in figure 2 above, on average across the country, black youth are serving life without parole at a per capita rate that is 10 times that of white youth. Many states have racial disparities that are far greater. Among the 26 states with five or more youth offenders serving JLWOP and for which Human Rights Watch had data on race, the highest black to white ratios are in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and California, where black youth are between 18 and 48 times more likely to be serving a sentence of life without parole than white youth.

Life without Parole and International Human Rights

The global rejection of life without parole for young offenders is overwhelming: The Center For Law and Global Justice at the University of San Francisco, in collaboration with Human Rights Watch, has confirmed that there are no youth offenders serving life without parole sentences anywhere in the rest of the world. In its use of JLWOP sentences for youth, the United States is an international anomaly.

The United States’ practice of sentencing youth to JLWOP is a violation of at least two international treaties to which the United States is party. The Human Rights Committee (the oversight and enforcement body for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) has said that “[t]he Committee is of the view that sentencing children to life sentences without parole is of itself not in compliance with article 24(1) of the Covenant.” In addition, in March 2008, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the oversight and enforcement body for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) found that, in light of the racial disparities in the sentencing of youth to JLWOP in the US, “the persistence of such [youth LWOP] sentencing is incompatible with article 5 (a) of the Convention. The Committee therefore recommends that the State party discontinue the use of life sentence without parole against [youth offenders], and review the situation of persons already serving such sentences.”

Fair Sentences for Youth

In the United States, criminal punishment has four goals: rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. Sentencing youth to life without parole fails to measure up on all four counts.

After years of ignoring the goal of rehabilitation, the United States is moving back to recognizing it as crucial to community safety. Life without parole not only does not advance this goal, it negates it. The sentence sends an unequivocal message to youth offenders that they are banished from the community forever, no matter how they change or grow. In this regard, we note that the American Bar Association adopted resolution 105C in 2008, urging the adoption of laws to ensure that “Youthful offenders should generally be eligible for parole or other early release consideration at a reasonable point during their sentence; and, if denied, should be reconsidered for parole or early release periodically thereafter.”

Proponents of life without parole believe the sentence is necessary in order to ensure retribution—that society metes out the worst punishment for the worst offenses. However, while teens can commit the same acts as adults, by virtue of their immaturity they are not as blameworthy or culpable. They do not have adults’ developed abilities to think, to weigh consequences, to make sound decisions, to control their impulses, and to resist group pressures; their brains are anatomically different, still evolving into the brains of adults.

Neuroscientists conducting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research have uncovered striking physical differences between the brains of adolescents and those of adults, showing that the areas involved in impulse

control are less developed in youth. These findings suggest that states should revise their sentencing laws to ensure that youth are not sentenced as if they were adults.

Supporters of the life without parole sentence also claim that teens who pause to consider the consequences before committing crimes will be deterred if they face harsh sentences such as life in prison without parole. But young people are less likely than adults to pause before acting, and when they do, research has failed to show that the threat of adult punishment deters them from crime. Finally, incapacitation as a justification for life without parole sentences fails because some youth offenders can be rehabilitated and become productive members of society.

The terrible crimes committed by youth can cause injury and death and ruin lives. In its sentencing choices, the United States must reflect the harm these youth have caused. But it must also acknowledge that they are not all irredeemably violent people. Recognizing their capacity to grow and to transform themselves is deeply embedded in human rights principles. Instead of violating those principles with regularity, the United States should vigorously uphold them.

Submitted by the Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children

Children’s Advocacy Clinic, Children in Prison Project, Florida State University College of Law

Children’s Law Center, Massachusetts

Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Massachusetts

Columbia Legal Services, on behalf of clients, Seattle, Washington

DLA Piper, LLP

Bernardine Dohrn, Director, Children & Family Justice Center, Northwestern University School of Law

Family and Friends of Inmates, Omaha, Nebraska

Shaena Fazal, Director, Long‐Term Prisoner Policy Project, John Howard Association of Illinois

Brian J. Foley, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law

Human Rights Advocates, California

Human Rights Watch, New York

Individual parents, relatives, or friends of youth serving JLWOP sentences throughout the United States

Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana

Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michelle Leighton, Director Human Rights Programs, University of San Francisco School of Law

NAACP, Legal Defense Fund, New York

National Center for Youth Law, Oakland, California

National Juvenile Justice Network, Washington, D.C.

Penal Reform International, Washington, D.C.

Pendulum Foundation, Colorado

The Sentencing Project, Washington, D.C.

Jeffrey Shook, Assistant Professor of Social Work and Law, University of Pittsburgh

Randolph N. Stone, Clinical Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

Rev. Bonnie Young, Kings Crossing Foundation, Colorado

Youth Advocacy Project, Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services

Youth Justice Coalition, Los Angeles (led by youth, including many serving LWOP and other life sentences

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | 1 Comment »

Safer Community or Prison Expansion Program? The rest of the story.

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 »

Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act

28. August 2008 by Rev Young.

OR HR 4300…..

We are excited to report that on September 11, 2008 the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on crime and terrorism will hold an information hearing on HR 4300.  This is a first step in the process of moving this legislation through our government processes.  For those of you that would like more information on this legislation or would like to read the language of the bill, please go to www.hr4300.com.

This will give youth offenders who are serving Life Without the Opportunity For Parole (LWOP) the chance to see a parole board once in 15 years and every three years after that.  This doesn’t mean that we will let all of them out wholesale.  This does not mean that everyone of the offenders will receive the benefit of parole.  What it DOES mean is that they will be given a chance….a second chance….to make something of their lives…..to give back to their communities……that’s all they ask. 

A chance.

Please got to www.house.govand click on the tab marked “Representatives”.  Find the Representatives for your state and then for your district.  Send them a short e-mail encouraging them to hear and support Representatives Scott and Conyers in their effort to reform our Juvenile Justice legislation.

How long do we want the notoriety of being the only nation in the world that sentences it’s children to die in prison? 

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

Juvenile Clemency Board in Colorado

6. August 2008 by Mary Ellen.

COLORADO : A LEADER IN JUVENILE JUSTICE

Coloradans have the opportunity to become worldwide leaders in what happens to juveniles when they are tried, convicted and incarcerated. To achieve this goal, Governor Ritter recently formed the first Juvenile Commutation and Pardon Board in the United States., Now, we believe it is time that he direct this Board and the Department of Corrections to create Juvenile Rehabilitation Programs, which can, and should, factor into commutation decisions for these juveniles.

Without question, Colorado must consider other civil justice policies than merely “throwing away the key” when a juvenile commits a crime. While the dictates of justice, and the considerations of victims are inarguable, we believe Colorado must also look at juvenile justice from a higher moral viewpoint than adult criminal justice.

Commutations for juvenile offenders are not the answer in every case, but to preclude commutations outright, as a matter of State policy, is to abrogate a cornerstone of our Constitution : that justice be meted out on the merits of each case - and not in the “one-punishment-fits-all” fashion we see today.

We believe that reduced sentences, in certain cases, are in the best interests of all Coloradans. By using Commutation as a potential reward for incarcerated juveniles, combined with a well organized series of programs for rehabilitation and education Colorado can become a leader in juvenile justice practice and a model for much-needed reforms.

Judges today, in cases of juveniles tried as adults, have few discretions to preclude unduly long sentences, or to factor rehabilitative potential in the punitive phase of a juvenile’s case. It may shock the sensibilities of most Coloradans to realize that there are dozens of juveniles now serving life without parole in Colorado prisons, and that these juveniles were charged as adults without any judicial role in that process, and were then sent to prison for life, with no judge ever being involved in the sentencing decision. These “lethal intersection” cases are a clear example of over-reaching prosecutors tipping the balance of powers in our State, without the citizenry ever realizing how unjust our system has become in these cases.

In the few cases where judges do still have some measure of sentencing discretion, the program options available for juvenile offenders are little more than a lock down boot camps. There is a place for boot camps in any juvenile justice program, but we believe these should be integrated with educational and rehabilitative programs that truly serve to redeem a juvenile offender while he or she pays the consequences of their actions by serving their sentence.

When a juvenile is tried and convicted , we as a State, must say,” We now have a duty, not only to punish this individual for the crimes they have committed, but to give them every chance for rehabilitation and education while serving their sentence. To otherwise return them to society without doing so, is a guarantee of a repeat cycle of failure and renewed criminal conduct.

Instead, in too many cases, unrestrained District Attorneys try them as adults, sentence them to extraordinarily long mandatory adult sentences, where they are incarcerated in adult prisons with no programs and no rehabilitation. We put these children into survival mode with the worst adult prisoners in our state, and keep them in warehouse facilities where the only “recreation” is violence.

No judge, no jury, no Governor, and no Parole or Commutation Board can know which juvenile will succeed in being rehabilitated and which will not. The way to find out, is to give them the opportunity. It is well said that morality and character cannot be infused, but rather, can only be illuminated. Custodial rehabilitation may be the only light some juveniles are ever given to rebuild their lives with. The best course is to give them the illuminating lights of rehabilitation and education, and measure their progress carefully. Lowering sentences does not have to mean automatic parole for unrepentant offenders. It should mean the opportunity for parole, if the juvenile is working towards true rehabilitation.

Compounding the problem is the fact that post-trial decision makers have very limited information as to which juveniles should receive consideration for a lowered or modified sentence. The only information entered into a juvenile’s in-custody file are negative indicators commonly known as incidents reports or write-ups. In fact, no system exists to report positive behavior, accomplishments while in custody, or rehabilitative progress. The only scoring done, is when the juvenile makes a mistake. Our government was not established to so unfairly prevent those who have fallen, from ever getting up, but that is the state of juvenile justice in Colorado today, and we believe this deserves attention and remedy.

Lest any Coloradan think these policies are only the problems of convicted criminals, you need only look at the cost of these policies that is borne by every citizen of our state, every single day. Our school graduation rates continue to fall, while our prison population continues to rise. While state spending on education over the past 10 years has increased by less than 21%, spending on prisons has increased more than 122%. When all our money is pulled from schools to build more prisons, it is no accident that our children follow. Case in point : merely housing the juveniles already sentenced to life without parole in our prisons today will cost the taxpayers more than $50 million dollars.

Colorado cannot afford the failed policies of the past.

That is why we call upon Governor Ritter to act. To rise above the failures of “throwing away the key”, and to implement policies and practices that balance all the diverse needs inherent in Colorado juvenile justice - the undeniable need for punitive sanctions for criminal conduct, the need for rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, and the need for the State to have policies which make moral and fiscal sense.

We believe Governor Ritter can and should direct the Juvenile Commutation and Pardon Board to make recommendations to the Department of Corrections as to which juveniles can be eligible for release programs after reviewing the file of each juvenile who asks for the program.

We believe that Governor Ritter should ensure that those who graduate from rehabilitative and educational programs then be eligible to apply to the Juvenile Commutation and Pardon Board for a reduced sentence.

Failing Executive Branch action, we believe this model should be put into law by the Legislature, so that judges can modify prison sentences for juveniles when they have earned eligibility.

Colorado can become a worldwide leader in Juvenile Justice. Not all, perhaps not even a majority, of the juveniles given such opportunities for redemption will succeed. Those that are redeemable, however, deserve the opportunity to work hard and earn a second chance. Not a free pardon. Not automatic parole. A second chance.

Who among us would deny this to someone who has paid a price for his crimes, and worked hard to earn this second chance?

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

Recent Articles on Juvenile Justice

7. July 2008 by Rev Young.

 I have chosen to post two recent articles that were published by two respected newspapers.  These two articles give hope to the cause of Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Prison Reform issues.  However, I believe as the authors do, that we will have to see how it really works.  Will it be enough?  The pieces of national legislation, Juvenile Justice Deliquency Prevention Act and HR 4300 are strong hopes but the internation legislation by the UN council The Rights of a Child would show that we are clearly ready to change the way we deal with Juveniles. Read on….. 

Juvenile Clemency Board

Panel makes inroads

With a system to review offenders finally in place, the first-of-its-kind board has started assessing cases.

By Kevin Simpson
The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 07/06/2008 11:39:22 PM MDT

Nearly a year after Gov. Bill Ritter established the nation’s first juvenile-clemency board, the panel has delved into individual cases — and could soon make its first recommendations on whether to offer some young offenders a second chance.

After establishing eligibility criteria and crafting an application process, the board reviewed two cases at its June 20 meeting, has given four others serious consideration and expects several more to be in the pipeline soon.

Some final clemency decisions likely will come before the end of the year, said Mark Noel, the state director for extradition and clemency. Adult clemency traditionally has been announced around Christmastime.

“This is all new ground,” Noel said. “We’ve had inquiries from all over the world about this board. It’s a very careful, serious, deliberate process. These are murder cases. You don’t want to rush something like this.”

The panel spent months devising a process for juveniles to apply for clemency and working with the Department of Corrections to get the system up and running. Ritter introduced the board as a political compromise to address some cases among at least 45 offenders already sentenced as juveniles to life without parole.

Juvenile-justice advocates, while frustrated by the slow pace so far, still hope the clemency board will turn out to be more than just political window dressing.

“We’re not asking that they all come out,” said Mary Ellen Johnson, executive director of the Denver-based Pendulum Foundation, a juvenile-justice advocacy group. “We’re asking for a realistic chance. One out of 100 is not realistic. I’d like to see 15 of the 45 (serving life without parole) have a realistic chance.”

Johnson said her organization also would like to work with the Department of Corrections to implement programs designed to prepare young offenders for life outside of prison walls.

“We don’t think, like some (offenders’) family members, that you just wave a magic wand and they come out,” she said. “It’s not going to happen.”

Mindful that clemency always carries political risks, she proposes a conditional commutation, in which a juvenile who successfully completes a cognitive-behavior program would go into a halfway house and then gradually acclimate to society.

“We want to work with the board to make this a real partnership,” she said, “to heal those young men but also to have public safety be paramount, so it’s a win-win for everybody.”

One glitch that surfaced as the board got underway involved use of an offender’s age at sentencing to determine eligibility for juvenile clemency, rather than age at the time of the crime.

Particularly in murder cases, months or even years can pass before a case goes to trial and sentencing. The unintended result of the board’s rule was that many juveniles serving life without parole wouldn’t have been eligible to apply.

The board granted waivers while it officially changed the rule to reflect eligibility by an offender’s age at the time of the crime, which was Ritter’s intent, Noel said.

The board makes nonbinding recommendations to the governor, who can reduce a sentence or deny clemency. Offenders who are denied must wait three years to reapply.

The seven-member board also will see its first turnover, as one member leaves for health reasons. Currently, the board has no African-American representation — a situation juvenile advocates would like to see change.

Kevin Simpson: 303-954-1739 or ksimpson@denverpost.com

45 Colorado offenders sentenced as juveniles, serving life without parole, who would be eligible for clemency under the current system

---

July 3, 2008

NY Times Editorial

Don’t Teach Our Children Crime

Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, the states agreed to humanize their often Dickensian juvenile justice systems in exchange for increased federal aid. This promising arrangement collapsed in the 1990s during hysteria about an adolescent crime wave that never materialized. The states intensified all kinds of punishments for children and sent large numbers to adult jails where, research has shown, they are more likely to be battered, traumatized and transformed into hard-core, recidivist criminals.
Congress is in the process of reauthorizing the law, and it ought to bar the states from housing children in adult jails, except for the most heinous crimes. Sadly, the updated version of the law, recently introduced in the Senate, falls short of that goal. But it does include a number of farsighted measures that discourage the placement of children in adult jails during the pretrial period and expands protections for children charged as adults.
The need for these measures is alarmingly evident in a report issued last year by the Campaign for Youth Justice, an advocacy group. The report found that as many as 150,000 people under the age of 18 are held in adult jails in any given year. More than half of young people who are transferred into the adult system are never convicted as adults — and many are never convicted at all.
The Senate bill takes a comprehensive approach to these issues. It would considerably tighten rules aimed at keeping children out of adult jails during pretrial periods. Children arrested for truancy, running away or other offenses that would not be criminal if committed by an adult would not be placed in juvenile jail unless absolutely necessary.
It also would require the states to work toward reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. It increases federal funding for technical assistance and for drug treatment, mental health care, mentoring and after-care programs that keep children out of the juvenile system in the first place. The bill advocates an evidence-based approach to hand out the money.
Jailing and criminalizing young Americans causes a lot more crime than it punishes or prevents. This bill represents an important step toward rational and compassionate justice for troubled children.

What do you think?

Posted in Legal News | Print | No Comments »