|
Youthful offenders deserve a second chance |
|
Written by administrator
|
|
Jun 03, 2010 at 07:48 PM |
A California measure would ensure that juveniles sentenced to life in prison are given at least the possibility of parole.
By Miriam Aroni Krinsky, Ernie Pierce and Jeanne Woodford
June 2, 2010
One of us is a retired police officer who daily put his life on the line to catch criminals. Another is a former Department of Justice attorney who spent years prosecuting violent drug dealers and organized crime organizations. The third, a former warden of San Quentin State Prison and director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, spent her career ensuring that those convicted served out their sentences as required by law.
Collectively, we have put or kept a lot of people in prison. Prison is where some people justly belong, many for long periods of time. But it is exactly our experience in law enforcement that causes us to agree with the Supreme Court's recent decision to abolish the sentence of life without parole for teens in nonhomicide cases.
That decision, however, did not finish the reforms needed in juvenile sentencing. There are thousands of lifers in the nation's prisons — about 250 in California alone — who as teenagers participated in crimes involving homicides. They all deserve a second chance, and at least some of them may deserve to be released.
As the high court recently recognized, there are inherent differences between teenage and adult criminals. A teen who commits a crime, even a terrible one such as murder, is not forever defined by that one act. Indeed, in our work, we have witnessed dramatic transformations among young people in our correctional facilities and in our neighborhoods.
Experts confirm that youths have greater potential for reform than adults; in many cases, young people "age out" of the type of behavior that leads to crime. Our laws should recognize that they are capable of redemption and reform.
California is on the threshold of doing just that. The Legislature is considering a bill, SB 399, that would allow those who prove they merit a second chance an opportunity to be considered for parole, but only after serving at least 25 years.
Clearly there are offenders who have committed heinous crimes and are unfit to be released regardless of the age they were when they committed their crime. SB 399 would not allow these people to return to our communities. Instead, it would allow for a thoughtful review to determine whether, years later, individuals sentenced as youths continue to pose a threat to the community.
We know that sentencing youngsters to a life in prison with no possibility for review of their sentence as they mature into adulthood isn't simply excessive; it is contrary to the interests of our state.
Life without parole does not deter criminal behavior among youths. Most kids get caught up in crime without analyzing the consequences of their acts. Indeed, research confirms that teenagers have weak impulse control and reasoning abilities.
Life without parole is also a very costly policy. In the case of young people, these sentences cost California about $2.5 million each. And without SB 399, there is no way to revisit these sentences and account for the adult that teen has become.
It is time for California, and our nation as a whole, to take the Supreme Court's decision to its next logical step and join the rest of the world by revisiting inflexible life-without-parole sentences for young offenders. Juvenile offenders are different; our laws and system of justice must acknowledge those differences.
Let us hope that state legislators will see their way through the all-too-common "tough on crime" mantra and find a way, instead, to be smart, just and fair on crime.
Miriam Aroni Krinsky was a federal prosecutor for 15 years, both in Los Angeles and with an organized-crime and drug enforcement task force in the mid-Atlantic region; Ernie Pierce retired after almost 30 years with the San Diego Police Department; Jeanne Woodford is the former warden of San Quentin State Prison and former director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times |
|
|
Colorado minority youth disproportionately tried as adults |
|
Written by administrator
|
|
May 06, 2010 at 03:34 PM |
Incomplete and botched data frustrates researchers looking to track the system
By Joseph Boven 5/5/10 12:43 PM
Lopsided percentages of young people charged as adults in Colorado courts appear to be ethic minority youth, an apparent bias rights activists suggest should be examined, especially given that Colorado is one of only 14 states in the country to embrace the hard-line “direct file” system, where district attorneys decide, without judicial review, whom to try as adults. According to analysts, the “direct file” system can be counterproductive and, in Colorado at least, is plagued by inadequate data collection and review. Indeed, even the most basic information, like the ethnic makeup of the juveniles being charged with adult crimes, is unreliable or simply not collected.
Independent investigations conducted this month by the Colorado Independent and members of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar came to the same conclusion: that Colorado DAs seem to charge ethnic minority youth as adults more frequently than white youth accused of committing the same kind of crimes. The findings, however preliminary, add more fuel to calls for more information on the system.
“We don’t even know how many kids are being considered for direct file or threatened with it. We don’t know how many kids took a plea to keep them out of adult court,” Sandy Mullins of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar told the Independent.
Digging for data, Mullins said that she and her colleague Kim Dvorchak could access only data that listed 15- to 17-year-olds tried for a crime in criminal court and those in the juvenile system. There was no data available from the state court system on individuals undergoing a direct file procedure, much less only threatened with direct file adult charges.
Some numbers
The Colorado Independent found that, according to the Colorado Judicial Branch Division of Planning and Analysis, between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2009 there were 273 children tried in adult courts. Of those children, 73 were black, 34 Hispanic, 2 Indian and 153 white. In addition, 11 girls and 261 boys stood trial as adults. (For one case there’s no data at all, including gender, and in 11 cases ethnicity is listed simply as “other.”)
Those numbers don’t match up with the Colorado population. The percentage of black youth undergoing adult court proceedings is 27 percent even though black people in 2008 made up only 4.3 percent of the state population; Latinos made up 12 percent of youth cases tired in adult courts although Latinos constitute 20 percent of the state population; and whites made up 56 percent of youth undergoing adult court proceedings even though whites make up roughly 71 percent of the Colorado population.
Little and unreliable data
There are certainly a great many factors to weigh in considering the meaning of these numbers but, again, researchers run up against a wall in searching for reliable data.
Although the relatively low percentage of Latino youth suspects landing in adult court seems encouraging, Mullins said that in El Paso, Arapahoe, Weld, and Douglas counties at least, Latinos seem to be identifying themselves as white. Mullins and Dvorchak researched each direct-file case they could find in those counties and discovered that often defense attorneys had requested interpreters for their “white” clients. In interviews with the attorneys, Mullins and Dvorchak found that most of those clients were Latinos. Mullins said that in some counties where a white majority of suspects was reported, in fact, many were mis-reported Latinos. Fact is, she said, “we have no idea what it looks like for the state. This is obviously a data-entry problem.”
Jessica Zender, a data analyst with the Colorado Judicial Branch, said that race is actually self-reported.
Mullins said Denver appears to be the most accurate in its reporting and the data there demonstrates a high prevalence of “kids of color” being tried as adults. “We know that there is a racial component, that there is disproportionate impact on kids of color. But we lack the data to actually use that number to create change.”
Statistics on young people involved in the state’s corrections Youth Offender System (YOS) indicate that there was a surge in Latino inmates during Fiscal Year 2009, the kind of statistical anomaly that would indicate a data collection problem. The YOS program saw 60 percent of incoming youth categorized as Hispanic last year. Among the group of 61 individuals, there were 38 Latinos, 10 African Americans and 13 European Americans.
Guesses at factors and motivations
Ted Tow, executive director for the Colorado District Attorneys Council, told the Independent that although “there can be no debate that there is minority over-representation,” the reality is that communities of color are affected disproportionately by crime across the board.
“It is easy to look at raw numbers and say that X number of blacks get charged, but unless you know that they are robbing or shooting other blacks, it is hard to say what the racial overtones are,” Tow said. “We don’t track it either. I’m not saying we have that data but it is a neglected feature.”
Tow said that data collection is essential to a fair judicial system but that DAs here don’t discriminate based on race in direct-file cases. “Race is not a factor that we consider when making those decisions.” Frankly, he said, much of this has to do with gangs. “The reality is that direct file is often used in gang situations and unfortunately gang involvement is greater in minority communities than in white communities.”
He said that minority communities are affected by a number of factors that add to increased crime activity, including school drop out rates and single-parent households. “It is unfortunate but it’s a socioeconomic situation that can’t necessarily be tracked back to a racially biased criminal justice system. I think that direct-file will carry the same basic numbers.”
Mullins said that without data, we can’t guess at the motivations, conscious or unconscious, that shape the direct file system here. “We know that these are kids that are vulnerable children but there is no place where that information is integrated to really capture why these kids are being charged as adults.”
A direct-file netherworld
As the Colorado Independent has reported previously, young people charged with adult crimes but still awaiting trial– that is, teenagers unconvicted of any crimes– can fall into un-tracked life in adult prisons, where their constitutional rights to basic services like education and mental health care go un-served, where authorities, including county sheriffs, readily describe facilities as inadequate to ensure safety for youth housed in adult prisons.
State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, introduced legislation this session to increase education for direct-filed youth and, in the process of writing the bill, struggled to find adequate data.
“A number of these kids are simply acquitted,” she told the Independent last month, adding that a quarter of the cases where juveniles are charged as adults are dismissed but that the resulting gap in their education leads to recidivism and also depression and attempts at suicide. |
|
|
Written by administrator
|
|
May 03, 2010 at 11:28 PM |
Editorial
Nearly a year ago, 13-year-old Danny Gudino shot his 9-year-old brother to death, and his mother, who survived, in a Colorado Springs’ suburb. Why did Danny commit such an unspeakable crime? By all accounts he was a normal, everyday kid. No problem behaviors at school. He came from a seemingly loving family.
What would cause Danny to rise from his bed, shoot his sleeping brother, then turn a rifle on his mom, only to cry immediately after, “I’m so sorry.”
Because Danny Gudino was only 13 when he pulled the trigger, the court is interested in “why.”
Had Danny been a few months older, 14-years-old to be exact, no one but his defense team and his family would have been seeking an explanation. Danny would have been charged as an adult and would right now be readying for a trial whose outcome would have resulted in decades or life in prison. (Since over 90% of trials result in convictions, it’s pretty much a given that Danny would NOT have been found innocent.)
A few months older and Danny’s fate would have been solely in the hands of district attorneys, who make their decisions whether to try children in the juvenile or adult court, in 72 hours or less.
That process is called “direct file.”
Instead, Danny is being allowed a “transfer hearing.” In a hearing that will last longer than many of the trials where Colorado juveniles have been convicted and sentenced to life behind bars, a judge will hear all the evidence from all sides. Afterward, he will decide whether Danny is to be tried as a juvenile where he can get treatment and will be released after 7 years – or enter the adult system and endure decades of hard time.
Who would YOU rather have determine the fate of a child -- a prosecutor whose job it is to prosecute or a judge who is charged to impartially weigh all the facts and then reach a decision?
A new bill, Colorado HB-1413, will narrow the offenses for which prosecutors can directly file juveniles as adults. HB-1413 will provide transparency – guidelines DAs have to follow when pondering the fate of the accused, will lengthen the time from 72 hours to two weeks before a decision can be made to direct file, narrow the range of chargeable offenses, and will offer the alternative of the Youthful Offender System to a wider variety of youth. The bill has received bi-partisan support, and has been endorsed by most District Attorneys and our former DA Governor.
It’s a good start, though there are some important exceptions. Fourteen and 15-year-olds charged with murder or sexual offenses can still be directly filed into the adult system.
And, boy, do I have a problem with that.
In the first place, a serious offense like homicide cries for explanation, which would mean an intensive investigation. You can’t do that within 3 days – which, even under this new bill, will still be the norm. And while sexual crimes conjure images of wild-eyed 15-year-olds raping babies or a host of innocent schoolmates, the “crime” can simply be sex between two consenting teens. After being found out by angry parents, the frightened daughter says, “I didn’t do anything me. He forced me.” And her boyfriend is charged with rape.
Homicide and sexual offenses can consign a youth to prison for life so why give that decision to a prosecutor who can’t fully investigate the circumstances of the crime in two weeks, let alone 72 hours? Shouldn’t such cases, where a juvenile’s future hangs in the balance, be the kind that that most strongly merit a transfer hearing? All the facts. All the psychiatric and psychological reports. All the experts to give an answer to what made this kid snap. And why or why not this teen can be redeemed. What is wrong with hearing all relevant evidence before making a decision? Prosecutors like to say they weigh three factors when making the decision whether to direct file– what’s best for the victim and/or his family, the safety of the community and what’s best for the defendant.
They can’t know that within a few days.
Furthermore, when is being thrown into adult prison with murderers, rapists and predators EVER best for a juvenile defendant?
Do I even have to mention that crimes involving death and/or sexual offenses invariably merit front page headlines? And no DA , particularly in Focus on the Family Colorado Springs, ever won re-election for being soft-on-crime. Can’t remember the time when, following a tragedy that led all the local news shows, a prosecutor said, “We’ll have a transfer hearing.” “We’ll try this kid as a juvenile.” Just doesn’t happen.
And the only reason it will happen in Danny Gudino’s case is because prosecutors can’t throw him into the adult system. He’s too young. They MUST have a hearing.
So explain this to me:
Why did it take the defense and prosecutors a year to gather evidence about a thirteen-year-old’s state of mind, about the crime, about his motivation – while it only takes a DA a handful of hours to gather all that evidence for the same crime if the kid is 14-15-16 or 17-year’s old?
This is not justice.
Sitting in the courtroom today watching Danny was very painful. Nearly two decades ago I sat in a similar courtroom when Jacob Ind, barely 15, was charged as an adult for the deaths of his parents.
Where was the investigation for Jacob? Why, when his older brother said immediately after the murders, that he didn’t blame his brother and there were “secrets” in the house, didn’t prosecutors investigate to uncover those secrets?
Today, Danny’s defense spoke of his family having a history of sleep disorders, of mental illness. Jacob didn’t sleep for three weeks straight before the murders, lost 18 pounds in a matter of days and was demonstrably psychotic. Not too hard to find that out. Just talk to Jacob’s classmates.
Didn’t happen. Immediately, Jacob was charged as an adult, was positioned firmly on the path that inexorably led to his conviction and a mandatory life without parole prison sentence .
Worst of all, when Jacob was charged, Colorado still operated an extremely successful treatment facility for youth who had committed similar crimes. At the Closed Adolescent Treatment Center, kids like Jacob received intensive help, rather than incarceration, and upon release, disappeared into middle-class suburbia where they got married, raised families, paid their taxes and were allowed some modest version of the American dream.
Treatment was a viable alternative for Jacob, and a few years previously, when we still believed in rehabilitation, would have been the norm. Caught up in that dark time of the 1990’s Jacob never had a chance. Redemption was never an option, not for Jacob or hundreds of other Colorado teens, victims of our fear of pint-sized super-predators who never materialized.
Now we’re living with the detritus: tens of millions of dollars spent on prison cells for kids who could have been rehabilitated, who deserved something – if only a transfer hearing before a judge – before being consigned to the living hell that is our justice system.
HB 1413 is a start. But it’s not nearly enough.
|
|
Last Updated ( May 03, 2010 at 11:29 PM )
|
|
|
|
