Trying youth as adults is ineffective

The Legal Aid Justice Center released a report this month that tells the stories of young people tried and incarcerated as adults in Virginia. The report concludes that trying youth as adults is ineffective.

Virginia is hardly the only state to try children as adults. In fact, all states have provisions for trying people as young as 14 (in some states as young as 10!) as adults in certain cases. The problem, however, is that children are not adults and shouldn’t be tried as such.

The report summarizes four major findings:

1. Trying and sentencing youth in adult courts increases recidivism;
2. Youth convicted as adults are not offered therapeutic services (like their peers in the juvenile justice system);
3. Juvenile justice professionals “support reform of the system”; and
4. The threat of being tried as an adult is used as a plea bargaining tool and hampers a meaningful defense for the youth in question.
   

Though this report was only released this month, its findings are hardly new. Juvenile justice professionals have long advocated for a juvenile justice system specific to the needs of young offenders. These professionals request funding for social service programs that would help rehabilitate young offenders, while many communities push for “tough-on-crime” stances that end up increasing the rates of recidivism when juveniles don’t get access to the education and therapy they need.

Inner Thoughts & Outbursts has covered juvenile justice issues in the past. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles. One of the major factors in the ruling was the fact that teenagers’ brains are not fully-developed. This seems like such an obvious justification for education and rehabilitation that though it shouldn’t surprise me, it still irks me to find that many people possess a lock-‘em-up-and-throw-away-the-key mentality when it comes to juvenile offenders.

In fact, I was disgusted when I read a recent article about the conviction of Steven Spader, who was convicted of a 2009 murder and sentenced to life without parole. Though his crime was horrific and reprehensible, New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Gillian Abramson was out of line when she addressed Spader, reportedly saying, “you belong in a cage… for the rest of your pointless life.” A juror on the case later said that he believed Abramson would have imposed the death penalty if possible, but that Spader was only 18 at the time of the murder and, due to state law, not eligible to be put to death for his crime.

Quite frankly, it is not whether or not Spader should be punished; that fact has already been determined by the law. Instead, I take issue with the fact that the judge felt it was her place to be insulting. Though an adult in some senses, Steven Spader was only 18 at the time of the murder – not old enough to drink alcohol or even rent a car without surcharges. Calling Spader's life "pointless" was unnecessary.

Ultimately, we need to start thinking about the criminal justice (and especially the juvenile justice) system logically, rather than emotionally. If trying and sentencing juveniles as adults leads to increased recidivism, we need to change! It seems obvious that surrounding an impressionable teenager with "hardened criminals" might affect his future in regard to crime; if we instead provided him with an education and counseling, perhaps he might grow up to be a productive member of society.

Supreme Court rules life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles

The juvenile justice system reached a major turning point this week when the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing non-violent juvenile offenders to life in prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment.

At the end of 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to review issue of juvenile life imprisonment by looking at two cases. For the first case, a jury in 1989 found 13-year-old Joe Sullivan guilty of sexual battery. About a decade and a half later, 17-year-old Terrence Graham was convicted of committing armed burglary and violating his probation. Though both boys were too young to vote, buy cigarettes, or enlist in the military, they were not too young to be sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). Both boys were convicted of non-homicidal offenses and both were sentenced to LWOP. The juvenile justice world has been waiting anxiously since these cases made the docket, as a ruling that overturns life sentences for juveniles affects approximately 2,600 currently incarcerated inmates nationwide, and will impact future sentencing.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the majority opinion (which included support from the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association), which was in favor of banning LWOP for juvenile offenders. Support for the ban generally falls into three categories:

1. Kristin Henning, co-director of Juvenile Justice Clinic and law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, cites research that states that juveniles brains are not fully developed, causing children to act impulsively. The research also states that children are likely to outgrow the impulse for criminal behavior, though juveniles sentenced to LWOP are not given that chance.
2. The United States is possibly the only country that currently sentences juveniles to LWOP. While the U.S. currently has about 2,6000 juveniles serving life without parole, Henning claims that no other countries have children serving such sentences; other sources cite no more than 12 foreign juveniles are in prison serving LWOP.
3. In 2005, the Supreme Court reviewed Roper v. Simmons, and declared the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional. Proponents of overturning LWOP in juvenile cases cite the 2005 ruling combined with a national consensus against juvenile life without parole in their arguments.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, as Justice Kennedy cited the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, which "does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime."

I agree with the majority opinion in this case, though I am disappointed that the ruling does not include the seven states (including Massachusetts) that allow LWOP in homicide cases. Though homicide is a horrific offense, I think that juveniles convicted of any crime should have the opportunity for parole. A juvenile incarcerated at the age of 15 and living the average male's lifespan, for example, has more than 60 years to spend in prison. A juvenile sentence that long is ridiculous regardless of the offense.

The bottom line is that the U.S. was virtually alone in its practice of sentencing juveniles to LWOP. With any luck, the practice will be completely overturned in my lifetime. At the very least, nearly 3,000 inmates incarcerated as juveniles will now have the opportunity to be paroled. It is my firm belief that with the appropriate resources, juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated to successfully reintegrate into society. This ruling is a victory for all those juvenile justice workers maneuvering to secure rights for juvenile offenders. May there be many more victories in the future.

Girls gone wild: How you can help rescue our teenage girls

The presence of girls in the U.S. juvenile justice system is on the rise, even though the nation’s juvenile crime has decreased overall in the last two decades. While the rate of delinquency dropped 29% for males between 1985 and 2002, the rate of delinquency for females rose a whopping 92%.

Such a rate of female delinquency is shocking and diversionary programming must be implemented immediately in order to reverse the trend. In response to this crisis, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing in October entitled “Girls in the Juvenile Justice System: Strategies to Help Girls Achieve Their Full Potential.”

Dr. C. Jackie Jackson, Ph.D., executive director of Girls Inc. of the Greater Peninsula, addressed the Subcommittee. Throughout her speech, she underscored the need for juvenile diversionary programs, particularly for girls.

According to Jackson, “primary prevention is the most cost-effective way to address the problem of juvenile crime among girls.” In addition to providing a safe place to go after school, programs like Girls Inc. provide programs that focus on life and social skills, financial and media literacy, empowerment and self-esteem, academics, and wholesome fun. When adolescents participate in after-school programming, they are participating in positive activities and avoiding the peak times for juvenile crime, juvenile drug and alcohol use, and teenage sexual activity.

Diversionary programs like Girls Inc. are critical in ensuring that girls have an opportunity to avoid the juvenile justice system. Such programs are a cost-saving measure, investing in girls’ development instead of paying their way through the juvenile justice system. Jackson reports that nationwide estimates for housing one adolescent in a juvenile detention center range from $32,000 – $65,000 per year. In contrast, a year’s worth of programming at Girls Inc. (including both after school and summer programs) costs less than $2,000.

Though the return on investment of these preventative programs seems obvious, Girls Inc. and thousands of other juvenile diversion programs across the nation find themselves struggling for funding. Many adolescents participating in these programs come from low-income families and cannot afford to pay for services. It is crucial that both Congress and the community rally to support juvenile diversion programs that help children access education and keep them from winding up in the criminal justice system. It is especially critical to meet the needs of teenage girls who often find themselves lost in a juvenile justice system designed for teenage boys.

What can you do to help? Get vocal! Support your local juvenile diversionary programs by calling on your elected officials to fully fund essential programs and volunteer or donate when you can. You can find a list of representatives that make up the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, by visiting its webpage. To learn more about Girls Inc. and its programming, visit www.girlsinc.org.

Teen rehabilitation: The bleak "status" update

Most teens know what a status update is (think Facebook or Twitter), but what constitutes a status offense?


A status offense is an act that is unlawful for juveniles, though it would be legal for adults. Common status offenses include running away from home, truancy, and alcohol possession by minors. Regulating these behaviors in children is regarded as a way of preventing future crime. Unfortunately, the juvenile justice system often produces repeat offenders, since its focus is not solely rehabilitative.

Though federal guidelines discourage the incarceration of status offenders (hoping, instead, to focus on community-based programming), between five and six percent of juveniles currently serving time are locked up due to status offenses. What’s worse, young people who are chronically truant can be confined with juveniles incarcerated for serious violent crime. Rehabilitative forms of justice should be available for everyone; it is clear, however, that the needs of teens with truancy issues are very different from the needs of juveniles convicted of sexual assault or murder.

Status offenders should be placed in residential rehabilitation programs, not detention centers.
Teens with substance abuse issues need treatment facilities with regular access to counseling, education, and groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. Those who are truant or runaways need a social worker or child advocate that can provide ongoing access to counseling and alternatives to school or home that will benefit both the child and the community.

Juveniles require follow-up support.
It’s not enough to ensure that a child goes through treatment. Juvenile offenders require follow-up support including ongoing access to counseling and a court-appointed adult serving as an advisor and case manager after the teen has been released from treatment. Without this level of support, juveniles are likely to offend again.

Treatment options and follow-up support must include families.
The Policymaker’s Guide to Effective Juvenile Justice Programs illustrates the link between ineffective parenting and juvenile crime. By educating family members and involving them in treatment plans, juvenile justice professionals are helping family members “buy in” to the treatment plan. If a parent isn’t willing or able to participate, someone else — a relative, teacher, or other trusted adult — should step in to support the juvenile.

Juveniles who make mistakes need coaching and support, not punishment. By putting children through appropriate treatment instead of locking them away in detention centers, we are investing in the future of our communities. Each dollar spent on prevention and rehabilitation saves money further down the road. Status offenders who are given help to overcome the obstacles in their lives are unlikely to become repeat offenders who enter the adult justice system, saving thousands of dollars that would be spent on adult courts, incarceration, and parole.

Only when we as much about status offenses as we do status updates, will we be able to enact change. Wouldn’t you rather your tax dollars went to rehabilitating youth than paying to house adult inmates? If officials are truly concerned about the cost of the justice system they should invest in rehabilitative programming that has a proven return on investment, instead of sticking to the status quo.

Juvenile justice system in the news

The past month has been a busy one for the juvenile justice system in the United States. CNN reported that teen offenders in Missouri are "finding a future" through a juvenile justice program that focuses on therapy and education, while the New York Times reported that mentally ill juveniles are straining the system. In either case, it's a good sign that people are talking about the juvenile justice system, which is far from perfect -- and in some cases, far from functional.

In Missouri, teen offenders are housed in dormitory-like buildings that provide colorful, comfortable accommodations. Teens go through therapy and are given the opportunity to go to school and receive job training. Juvenile offenders are also assigned case workers and work closely in small groups, learning about self-control, teamwork, and other skills necessary to become productive members of society. Even violent offenders are given the chance to work toward rehabilitation in small groups, though they live in gated facilities.


While the federal rates of suicide and recidivism in youth offenders remain relatively high, officials in Missouri note that no juvenile offenders have committed suicide while in the program (which began in the 1970s) and only about 9 percent of juveniles in Missouri are back in trouble within three years of release. The low rate of recidivism, in turn, saves the state's justice system billions of dollars by lowering the number of repeat offenders and cutting down on the costs of building and maintaining more prisons.

Many of the young people who go through the Missouri system eventually go on to college and become productive members of their communities. CNN reported that one girl, who was incarcerated in 2005 for alcohol abuse and behavioral problems, said that she had always wanted to go to college, but didn't think it could actually happen. This year, she's graduating from college and applying to law school.

More states should follow the Missouri model for juvenile offenders, ensuring that youth get the attention and education they need to become productive members of society. It is a stark contrast with the Ohio system mentioned in the New York Times article. The system in question houses a juvenile population that includes many teens with mental illness. Nationwide, nearly two-thirds of juvenile inmates are dealing with psychiatric disorders. Housing juveniles with mental illness in correctional facilities fails to address the issue at hand, which is getting the youth access to medication, therapy, and other tools that will allow them to manage their illnesses and work their way toward becoming reintegrating into their communities.

The article in the New York Times also reports that juvenile correctional facilities are the usually the only option for teenagers who deal with serious mental illness and criminal records. Once they arrive, teenagers are usually kept on strong psychotropic drugs and receive limited access to therapists and behavior modification programs. The article also mentions that in 2001 over 9,000 families relinquished custody of their mentally ill children to the juvenile justice system so that the youth could get access to mental health services.

It is irresponsible not to allow children and teenagers access to the appropriate resources in any case, but it ought to be criminal to ignore the needs of the mentally ill. If we don't allow mentally ill teenagers some control over their bodies and minds through medication and therapy, how do we expect them to navigate the world in a safe and appropriate way? What do we expect mentally ill teenagers to learn in correctional facilities? By simply locking them up and throwing away the proverbial key, we're only teaching them that no one is looking out for their best interests, so they'll have to fend for themselves.

My hope is that more states will begin to follow the Missouri model. It's appropriate, intelligent, and ultimately better for society if we prepare juvenile offenders for a life outside prison walls. Prepared teens are functional teens, and functional teens become functional adults who stay out of the prison system. The investment with teenagers up front will pay for itself a dozen times over in the end; we just need to be willing to make the investment now to reap the rewards in the future.