A court just for juveniles in N.Y.

/in , /by
By Published: September 16, 2013

Teenagers prosecuted in adult courts or who do time in adult jails fare worse in life and can go on to commit more violent crimes than those who are handled by the juvenile justice system. Neuroscience research has found that these young offenders don’t weigh risks the way adults do, making them prone to rash judgments that can land them in trouble with the law.

These facts argue for steering adolescents into the juvenile justice system, where they can receive rehabilitative services and be spared adult criminal convictions that banish them to society’s margins and make it virtually impossible for them to find jobs.
This logic has prevailed throughout the country. But it has, so far, been ignored in New York State, one of only two states — the other is North Carolina — that sets the age of adult criminal responsibility at 16. (Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia consider 18 as the age for adult prosecution, and 11 states set it at 17.) Nearly 50,000 16- and 17-year-olds in New York end up in the criminal courts each year, a vast majority charged with nonviolent crimes like fare beating, marijuana possession or shoplifting.

Jerry Brown OKs early parole hearings for juvenile offenders

/in , /by

By Anthony York
September 16, 2013

Inmates who committed serious crimes when they were minors but were prosecuted as adults will have a new opportunity to get out of prison under a bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday night.

The new law will allow eligible inmates to have their cases reviewed for possible release as early as 15 years into their prison sentence.

Brown signed a bill last year that gave similar rights to juvenile offenders serving life sentences without possibility of parole.

The measure signed by Brown on Monday will cover thousands more inmates who were serving long-term sentences. There are more than 6,500 inmates in state prisons who were under 18 when they committed their crimes but were prosecuted as adults.

Read more

Making our case in the New York Times

/in , /by

In an op-ed in the New York Times, CFSY director & national coordinator Jody Kent Lavy argues that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama should be retroactive and that children should never be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Give them another chance

The United States Supreme Court, in three rulings since 2005, has made it clear that children are “constitutionally different” from adults. Due to unique characteristics, they are not deserving of our nation’s harshest punishments.

More than 2,000 people are currently in prison serving mandatory life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed as youths. In each of these cases, the judge had no choice but to impose this sentence. For youth facing life sentences, Miller v. Alabama now requires alternative sentencing options and the consideration of certain factors related to youthfulness at sentencing – including a child’s maturity, role in the crime, home environment and potential for rehabilitation. Since the court ruled that those mandatory sentences violate juveniles’ Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, all of those now serving those terms should be given new hearings. Had judges in those cases been given sentencing discretion, fewer severe sentences might have been imposed.

Read more

September 19, 2013

Iowa Supreme Court strikes down extreme sentences

/in , /by
The Iowa Supreme Court issued an important ruling last week striking down extreme sentences that were imposed on youth in an effort to narrowly comply with last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. Miller found that children may not receive mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Court ruled in Iowa v. Null, Iowa v. Pearson and Iowa v. Ragland that the Miller decision must be applied retroactively, judges must consider key factors related to child status before imposing a lengthy sentence, and life-without-parole sentences should be used rarely, if ever.

 Read the rulings:

 Iowa v. Null

 Iowa v. Pearson

 Iowa v. Ragland

Key points of the rulings:

Gov. Terry Branstad’s mass commutation of individuals impacted by Miller to a 60-year mandatory sentence does not comply with the Supreme Court’s ban on mandatory life without parole.

“Accordingly, Ragland’s commutation did not remove the case from the mandates of Miller. The sentence served by Ragland, as commuted, still amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the Iowa Constitution.” Iowa v. Ragland

The Court found that other lengthy mandatory sentences, — even if they do not use the wording “life without the possibility of parole” – are also unconstitutional under Miller. Sentences of more than 35 years cannot be mandatorily imposed upon youth without consideration of key factors.

The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of Denem Anthony Null, who was required to serve at least 52.5 years of his seventy-five-year aggregate sentence for second-degree murder and first-degree robbery. Because he was sixteen years and ten months old at the time of his offenses, he would not be eligible for parole until age 69.

“…We believe that while a minimum of 52.5 years imprisonment is not technically a life-without-parole sentence, such a lengthy sentence imposed on a juvenile is sufficient to trigger Miller-type protections.” Iowa v. Null

The Iowa Court also reiterated the US Supreme Court’s statement in Miller that sentences of life without the possibility of parole should be imposed on kids “only in rare or uncommon cases” if at all.

Miller should be applied retroactively to people who have already been convicted and exhausted their appeals.

“On balance, we think the best analysis of the issue is found in an article by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. He stated:

‘There is a strong argument that Miller should apply retroactively: It says that it is beyond the authority of the criminal law to impose a mandatory sentence of life without parole. It would be terribly unfair to have individuals imprisoned for life without any chance of parole based on the accident of the timing of the trial.

. . . [T]he Miller Court did more than change procedures; it held that the government cannot constitutionally impose a punishment. As a substantive change in the law which puts matters outside the scope of the government’s power, the holding should apply retroactively.'” Iowa v. Ragland

In the days since the rulings, Iowa newspapers have written editorials in support of the ways that the Iowa Court has said that children must be held accountable. Read news coverage and commentary on the issue:

The Register’s Editorial: Juvenile lifers deserve second look by judges

Sentencing for juveniles will be case-by-case 

Hundreds of juveniles could appeal felony sentences under Iowa court rulings 

 

Gingrich, Nolan voice support for SB 260

/in , /by

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Pat Nolan, president of Prison Fellowship and former Republican head of the California Assembly, have voiced their support for California’s Senate Bill 260 in an op-ed in the Fresno (California) Bee newspaper.

SB260 would provide for opportunities for parole consideration for people convicted of crimes as children who have since served several years in prison, demonstrated they have changed and fulfilled other requirements.

Gingrich and Nolan note the developmental differences that make children less culpable than adults and write, “Allowing young offenders to apply for review hearings will provide an incentive to take responsibility and express remorse for their actions, and encourage them to become self-sufficient, taxpaying and law-abiding members of society.”

Gingrich and Nolan also wrote an editorial in support of SB9  when it was being considered in 2012. Under SB9, most people sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as children may request new sentencing hearings.

Gingrich and Nolan are part of a growing number of voices across the political spectrum who are calling for broad reforms in the ways that we hold young people accountable.

To help with the efforts in California, go to www.fairsentencingforyouth.org.

Read the full article:

Gingrich, Nolan: Young offenders can regain public’s trust

 

The light at the end of the tunnel

/in /by

I was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison when I was 13 years old.

I had already spent time in the juvenile detention center on seven different occasions. Yet at such a young age, I didn’t fully understand the ramifications of what had occurred; nor did I understand how so many lives — including my own — would be devastated because of my actions. I did not think the victim would die and I was not the actual killer, so I never imagined that I would face a long prison term. Only when I was transferred to adult court and spoke to my defense lawyer did I understand that I would likely spend decades in prison. I eventually plead guilty in order to avoid the 40-year sentence the state sought.

Because I was so focused on the daily routine of survival in an aggressive environment, I didn’t have many opportunities to reflect upon my life or even imagine a better future. It wasn’t until I was 18 and in solitary confinement at Pontiac Correctional Center in Illinois that I realized how destructive and wrong I had been. I thought about all the people I had hurt; I thought about his family and the pain I had caused them and most of all I wished I had the power to go back in time and save his life. Overwhelmed with remorse and regret, and with my growing sense of disillusionment with the gang life in which I was involved, I began to think about the root causes of my childhood decisions.

I realize that I — like so many misled youth — had been perfectly socialized into being a gang member. My childhood traumas of living in poverty, having a mother diagnosed with mental illness, living in fear of an abusive step-father, and being placed in and out of foster care made me ripe for the occasions of impulsive and destructive behavior — especially gang involvement which gave me the sense of having a new family.

This week we mark the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for youth are unconstitutional due to the categorical differences between children and adults. Youth must be held accountable when they cause harm to others, and especially when a life is taken.

Yet, I believe that as a society, we also have an obligation to seek the most humane and rehabilitative approach possible when sentencing kids, for even the most serious offenses. Brain science tells us that children are developmentally different from adults and have a unique capacity for change.

I am proof that this is true. As I matured, I started to make better decisions. Just like many prisoners, all I wanted was to someday live a normal life. I also imagined that someday I would be able to help prevent others from making the same mistakes that I once made. By leaving the gang and surrounding myself with positive and supportive people I slowly began to recreate myself. With good behavior, I was transferred to a medium security prison. Within a few years, I had several significant educational accomplishments and had earned a bachelor’s degree in social science with a 4.0 GPA and was inducted into an honor society for outstanding scholarship. I geared my educational studies in the direction of someday being able to work with at-risk youth.

I was released from prison in 2002, after serving 13 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Soon after my release I re-enrolled into Roosevelt University, where I received my undergraduate degree, and earned a Master of Arts in Counseling and Human Services. During that time, I also worked as an outreach worker for an anti-violence organization. In the past decade, I’ve worked and volunteered in various roles designed to keep youth out of trouble. Currently, I work as a clinical field interviewer for an ambitious government-funded study that looks at the mental health needs and outcomes of individuals who were formerly incarcerated as youth and is intended to help guide future public policy decisions and interventions for at-risk youth.

My life course is a testament of the human potential for positive change, and I am in no way an exception. I personally know many individuals who have gone through similar experiences and are now living positive and productive lives. But honestly, I don’t know what I would have felt if I hadn’t seen that light at the end of the tunnel. It must feel like a never-ending nightmare to reach mid-life and realize that you are serving a prison sentence that will never end because of something you did as a kid. I imagine it’s almost like serving time for someone who long faded away as a result of the years of punishment and a growing sense maturity.

As policymakers consider how they will move forward in revising their youth sentencing schemes, I urge them to consider developing new policies that provide opportunities for young people to demonstrate that they have changed and are ready to join me and others like me in making the world a better place. We all have the capacity to change. We just need a chance.

Reprinted from the Huffington Post June 21, 2013

CFSY director discusses Attorney General's "Smart on Crime" initiative in news story

/in , /by

CFSY Director and National Coordinator Jody Kent Lavy discusses how Attorney General Eric Holder’s “Smart on Crime” initiative could impact young people in this story with by The Chicago Bureau.

In a bid to decongest the nation’s overpopulated prisons, the Obama administration has proposed leniency for certain drug cases, a move with uncertain consequences for juvenile inmates.

The president’s new Smart on Crime initiative has received national attention since Attorney General Eric H. Holder announced the policy at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco on Monday.

Attorney General Eric Holder / Creative Commons

Attorney General Eric Holder / Creative Commons

The initiative – highlighted by an easing of mandatory minimum sentencing laws for low-level drug cases – could help reduce the booming prison population. But it’s unclear what impact that will have on the country’s juvenile incarceration rate, the highest of any industrialized nation.

“This is all great language, but in terms of what reforms (Holder’s) proposing and how they will reduce juvenile incarceration – it’s an open question,” said Antonio Ginatta, Human Rights Watch advocacy director of the U.S. Program . “The real action needs to occur in state legislatures and in Congress.”

“Long story short, he identifies the right issues, but I don’t know if he has all the tools necessary to make the changes.”

Read More

All Michigan children sentenced to life in prison are eligible for parole consideration, federal judge rules

/in , /by

The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth applauds a federal judge’s ruling this week  that everyone convicted of a first-degree homicide offense in Michigan as a child and sentenced to life in prison is now eligible for parole consideration.

The Court also said it will rule shortly on the reforms necessary to ensure that Michigan has a parole sentence that provides meaningful and realistic opportunities for release.

The ruling brings Michigan closer to a sentencing scheme that holds children accountable when they are convicted of serious crimes while considering their potential for change and rehabilitation.

The decision follows last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which found that mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional when imposed for a crime committed as a child. In making the Michigan ruling, the judge rejected the state attorney general’s request to limit a January decision that required opportunities for parole for people who were sentenced to life in prison as children to only the named plaintiffs. U.S. Judge John Corbett said in his decision this week that the January ruling applies to everyone in the class.

“Every person convicted of first-degree murder in the state of Michigan as a juvenile and who was sentenced to life in prison shall be eligible for parole,” said U.S. Judge John Corbett O’Meara.

In Michigan, people convicted of first-degree murder are automatically sentenced to life in prison. More than 350 people have received the sentence after being convicted of crimes committed when they were younger than 18.

“This order makes clear that every person sentenced to life without parole for a crime committed when they were a child is now eligible for parole,” said ACLU lead attorney Deborah LaBelle, who had asked that earlier ruling apply to everyone convicted for crimes committed as a child. “As the court previously ruled ‘To hold otherwise would be to allow the state to impose unconstitutional punishment on some persons but not others, an intolerable miscarriage of justice.’”

It's time to talk about the role of race in juvenile justice

/in , /by

The death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of shooter George Zimmerman have generated renewed conversations about the role of race in the criminal justice system.

As the national organization working to end sentences of life without parole for children, the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth has a responsibility to speak honestly about the problems within the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems. The very practice of sentencing children to die in prison was born during a period of heightened fear and racism exacerbated by the since disproven superpredator theory, which projected a rising tide of young people who would engage in violent criminal activity without regard for human life or consequences.   

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, according to Human Rights Watch. In several states, black youth are at least 18 times more likely to be serving a sentence of life without parole than white youth.

A sentence of life-without-parole is a sentence to die in prison. Imposing this irrevocable sentence on a child is a declaration that he or she is a throwaway person.   In addition, we know that homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, ages 15-34 according to the Centers for Disease Control, yet gun control has yet to be addressed in a meaningful way. These statistics certainly raise the question of how our society assigns value to the lives of black and brown children compared to those of whites. 

Many have compared Trayvon’s death to that of Emmitt Till, who was in 1955 beaten to death, shot in the head and thrown into a river in Money, Mississippi after he was accused of whistling at a white woman. Although two white men were positively identified as the assailants during a trial, an all-white jury found the men not guilty. Despite this, Till’s death had a major impact on the movement for racial equality after the world saw images of his boated, scarred body in his casket.

Whether or not we agree with this comparison, we must use this opportunity to ensure that important conversations about racial disparities throughout the juvenile and criminal justice systems– and specifically as they relate to life without parole for children – can take place. We don’t claim to have the answers, but we at the CFSY commit to pushing for data, strategies and solutions.

San Quentin Prisoners Learn to Find Peace and Power Through Personal Exploration

/in , /by

July 24, 2013

This story from PBS NewsHour highlights an innovative program at San Quentin State Prison that helps incarcerated individuals connect to the trauma that contributed to their behaviors and develop a commitment to creating peace. The data demonstrate that youth who receive this sentence often have experience a number of childhood traumas.

San Quentin story video