Arguments begin on how to try boy accused of killing pregnant woman

/in /by

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10025/1030869-454.stm

By Sadie Gurman

Twelve-year-old Jordan Brown’s future rests in a courtroom. The question is which one.

Prosecutors say the fifth-grader used a 20-gauge shotgun to kill his father’s pregnant fiancee as she slept in February in their farmhouse in New Beaver.

If he is tried and found delinquent in juvenile court, the state could not incarcerate him beyond his 21st birthday.

If he is tried and convicted of first-degree murder in adult court, experts say he would become the youngest person in the United States to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison without parole.

. . .

“It is irresponsible to be sending into adult court these youth who are still growing and changing,” said Jody Kent, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, which is monitoring the case.

“It’s impossible to determine now what an 11-year-old is going to look like 20, 30, 40 years from now.”

Read more. . .

Life terms for teens are unjust, lawyer says

/in /by

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20101200345

By Jeff Eckhoff

The lawyer for a 31-year-old woman serving life in prison for a murder she committed as a teen called Tuesday on the Iowa Supreme Court to treat children differently under the state’s sentencing laws.

“It is our position that a judgment that there is no distinction between a child of 14 and an adult” is improper, said attorney Brian Stevenson of Equal Justice Initiatives, an Alabama-based juvenile-advocate group. “To say to any child of 14 that ‘you’re only fit to die in prison’ is cruel and unusual.”

A state lawyer countered that some crimes deserve an absolute punishment regardless of age.

“I think we all agree that we don’t want this to happen to a typical 14-year-old,” Assistant Iowa Attorney General Thomas Andrews told the justices. “But Ruthann Veal is not a typical 14-year-old.”

Veal was a heavily abused child whom Andrews described as “a violent recidivist.” Court records say she was 14 years and 11 months old in June 1993 when she fled from a juvenile group home, entered the Waterloo home of Catherine Haynes, 66, grabbed a kitchen knife and attacked her.

Read More . . .

States rethink 'adult time for adult crime'

/in /by

By Stephanie Chen

A year ago, Maydellyn Lamourt watched her 16-year-old son’s dreams fall apart.

The outgoing sophomore who enjoyed playing sports was charged and sentenced as an adult in Connecticut for third-degree assault.

The crime: He and a friend stole a pack of gum from another teen.

Because he entered the adult penal system, the teen’s prospects of joining the Marines are dim. His troubles have landed him in an alternative high school.

If Lamourt’s son had committed the crime this month, his situation would be different. His record would have been sealed in the juvenile system.

Read More. . .

Children Are Not Too Old to Change

/in /by

http://www.newsweek.com/id/230920

By Ellis Cose

One day, treatment of young people who run afoul of the law may be guided by logic rather than politics, prejudice, and uninformed passion. That was the implicit message of a report delivered to New York Gov. David Paterson last month, just in time for Christmas. The report, from the governor’s task force on reforming criminal justice, came on the heels of a U.S. Justice Department investigation that found New York’s juvenile penal system to be tragically mismanaged.

Youngsters in custody were routinely assaulted by staffers. Beatings were so severe that teeth were knocked out, bones were broken, and some kids were rendered unconscious. The assaults were sometimes sparked by infractions no more serious than laughing or stealing a cookie. The incarceration and the primitive methods accompanying it came at a substantial cost: $210,000 a year per child. Wouldn’t it make more sense, task-force members reasoned, to reserve incarceration for those who posed a threat to public safety? For youngsters who are not deemed dangerous, other methods seem more reasonable. “The state should treat and rehabilitate them, not hurt and harden them,” wrote the task force.

Read More. . .

When 'life' is cruel

/in /by

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/14/opinion/la-ed-lwop14-2010jan14

Editorial

The United States is the only nation in which someone can be locked up forever, with no chance for parole, for a crime committed in his or her youth. The Supreme Court is expected in coming days or weeks to rule on whether states may continue this costly, foolish and cruel practice of extinguishing a youth’s hope and chances at redemption, even in cases in which no one died.

Studies show problems in system

/in /by

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100108/NEWS01/701089915/-1/frontpage

By Paul Hammel

LINCOLN — Two studies commissioned by the Nebraska Legislature suggest that the state’s judicial system for juveniles is broken and must be changed to properly address cases of abuse and neglect, youth crime and truancy.

Reports on the studies, released Thursday at a public hearing, cited problems such as inadequately trained and overworked attorneys, lack of attorney-child consultation, and a lack of mental health services for juveniles.

One study indicated that the state’s system of appointing lawyers as guardians ad litem to advocate for a child’s best interests in abuse and neglect cases was a “cruel fraud” because the attorneys often don’t meet with their clients and end up serving as a “rubber stamp” rather than an advocate.

“It makes it look like there is a voice for Nebraska’s children in the court process, but in fact, that voice is mute,” concluded a report by the National Association of Counsel for Children, a child advocacy group based in Aurora, Colo.

Read More. . .

Two teens get 50 to life in drive-by shooting; advocates protest sentence

/in /by

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/youths-get-50-years-in-driveby-shooting-advocates-protest-sentence.html

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske

More than two dozen youths and advocates gathered in front of the criminal courts building in downtown Los Angeles to support two young males who were sentenced today to 50 years to life in prison for a fatal drive-by shooting.

A jury convicted Steven Menendez, 17, and Jose Garcia, 19, of murder in July in the March 2007 death of 16-year-old Danny Saavedra.

Saavedra was playing basketball in the 500 block of 82nd Street in South Los Angeles when he was shot in what police described as a gang-related attack. Afterward, officers pursued a vehicle matching the description of the one used in the killing, and when Garcia and Menendez got out, they were arrested.

Both later said they were just passengers and identified the shooter as Noel Velasco, a 26-year-old member of the Street Villains gang. Velasco was never charged and was shot to death three months later.

Read More. . .

Arrests Aren't Enough

/in /by

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.guns27dec27,0,5917978.story

By Doug Ward

Although it is very important to make good court cases, get good convictions and get long sentences for “bad guys with guns,” it does not solve the larger issue: kids growing up to be bad guys with guns. There aren’t enough prisons to incarcerate our way out of this predicament.

We must take a serious look at prevention. Yes, prevention. How can we better keep kids from becoming criminals? How can we instill hope into our youth? How can we create healthy communities?

The answers aren’t unknown – they are just hard to implement.

•Healthy residents. The root causes of teen disorder start in the womb. Prenatal care, parenting skills, nutrition, health care, early childhood education: All can avoid many problems later in life. Continued family support and quality educational experiences throughout childhood greatly increase the chances for a successful life. After-school programs, athletics and positive adult role models continue the chances for success through adolescence.

Read More

Jailing juveniles

/in /by

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR2009121302444_pf.html

Editorial

THE SENATE Judiciary Committee should embrace a bill scheduled for debate on Thursday that institutes needed reforms in how the nation deals with youth who run afoul of the law.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act does not impose federal strictures on state and local entities, but it provides funds for those that choose to comply with the legislation’s guidelines. In this way, the Justice Department, which administers the act, can provide incentives to states to comply with what it considers best practices.

Perhaps the most important provision in the legislation is one that calls on states to keep juveniles — even those charged as adults — separate from alleged adult offenders. Statistics show that juveniles held in adult facilities are more likely to be attacked, more likely to commit crimes once released and more likely to commit suicide than those held in facilities that house only minors. Even so, the act sensibly gives prosecutors and judges some discretion to detain in adult facilities youths who are charged with the most violent crimes and who pose a significant threat to other juveniles. And it makes accommodations for small or rural communities that do not have separate adult and juvenile facilities as long as youth are held out of “sight and sound” from the adults.

The bill rightly encourages states to eliminate the practice of locking up juveniles charged with status offenses, such as truancy or running away from home. Studies have shown that juveniles and communities fare much better when status offenders are redirected to counseling, mentoring or school-based programs. Under the act, states that now allow indefinite detention of status offenders would have three years to revise their policies in order to continue to qualify for federal funds.

The act also calls on states to be aware of and address the growing evidence that African American and Hispanic youths are frequently dealt with more harshly than their white counterparts. For instance, African American and Hispanic juveniles are much more likely to be detained even for minor crimes than are white juveniles and are much more likely to be tried as adults than white youths who are accused of similar crimes. States that receive federal funds would have to keep records of the race and ethnicity of juveniles who come into the system and how they are dealt with and create a plan to eliminate disparate treatment between minority juveniles and white offenders, if such exists.

Funding these new approaches is not cheap, but it is worthwhile. The bill calls for an appropriation of some $245 million for fiscal 2010, increasing to $442 million by fiscal 2015. To ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent, lawmakers should insist that the periodic progress reports provided by states and an annual assessment by the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention be made public.

Teen felons need chance for parole

/in , /by

http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/884872.html

By Murray Light

Does it make any sense for a judge to sentence a juvenile to life imprisonment and then add the caveat that the youngster shall not have the possibility of parole so long as he or she is alive?

There are those who say the judge who makes this a part of his sentencing of a juvenile is in violation of the Eighth Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. They point to the 2005 ruling in Roper v. Simmons in which the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles, and say that the logic for that decision should extend to life imprisonment without parole as well.

The Supreme Court currently has before it two cases involving juveniles and must decide whether life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. A sentence of life without the possibility of parole is a judgment that an offender will never be fit to return to civil society no matter how long he or she lives.

There are those who say that this punishment is proper for adults who have committed terrible crimes but not for juveniles. They make the case that the court in the Roper case emphasized the immaturity of juveniles even at age 17, a point that finds growing support in brain science.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the dominant court voice in the Roper case and who wrote for the court majority in its opinion, is likely to be assigned the role of writing the opinion in the two pending court cases. Since the ruling in the Roper case, research on brain behavior of juveniles strongly indicates that they are less mature than adults. This should be important in deciding whether that immaturity justified an exclusion from the sentence of life without parole. It is interesting to note that the two pending cases awaiting final determination by the court are quite different. In one case, the defendant was sentenced to life without parole for a probation violation involving a house break-in at the age of 17. In the other case, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault at the age of 13. It is difficult to understand how the two cases, so differing in severity, could be linked. Neither one on the face of it appears serious enough to justify the original sentences.

I would have to say that life without parole is never a fair sentence for a juvenile, although I do believe that teenagers must be held accountable and punished for their misdeeds. One cannot overlook another factor that has come to the forefront since the Roper case. Recent studies by very reliable groups now indicate that juveniles who commit crimes, including very serious offenses, grow up to be law-abiding adults and that it is impossible to predict which juvenile offenders will become criminals in their adult lives.

Hopefully, Chief Justice John Roberts will assign Kennedy to write the opinion of the court in these two important but disparate cases. Currently there are 2,574 juveniles serving life without parole. It is a statistic we cannot be proud of.

Now, one final but important thought on this subject. It would be worthwhile for a body of lawmakers, with judicial backgrounds, to be named to review each of the 2,574 cases to determine if these juveniles now incarcerated for life have been placed there for the right reasons. I am certain many could or should be released from prison.

Murray B. Light is the former editor of The Buffalo News.