Excellent documentary on mental illness

Frontline (PBS) just did a fascinating and heartbreaking documentary on mentally ill prisoners, following them after their release from prison.  The show can be viewed here.

Illinois changes juvenile justice law

Illinois has joined “37 other states, the District of Columbia, the Federal Government and and nearly every other nation in the world” in raising its age for exclusive juvenile court jurisdiction from “prior to his or her 17th birthday” to “prior to his or her 18th birthday.” Effective January 1, 2010, any 17 year-old charged with a misdemeanor will be heard in juvenile court. Any 17 year-old charged with a felony but is only convicted of a misdemeanor must be sentenced under the Juvenile Court Act. Also enacted was the creation of a “Juvenile Jurisdiction Task Force” to report to the Illinois legislature by January 1, 2010 whether 17 year olds charged with a felony should also be referred to juvenile rather than criminal court. If approved, those children would be petitioned to juvenile court beginning January 11, 2011. The full text of the bill is available here.

Statement from Council of Europe Commissioner

Below is a statement on juvenile justice by the Council of Europe Commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg:

There is a disturbing trend in Europe today to lock up more children at an earlier age. The age of criminal responsibility is already very low in some countries, such as the United Kingdom. Suggestions to lower the age limit to 12 years old have recently been made in France, while a similar law has been adopted in Georgia. In my opinion the time has come to move the argument away from fixing an arbitrary age for criminal responsibility and find a more childfriendly solution to juvenile justice.

A caring society responds promptly, resolutely and fairly to juvenile offences. Juveniles are certainly not helped by a laissez-faire response if they violate the law. It is imperative that young persons are taught to take responsibility for their actions.

However, experience has shown that criminalisation, and in particular imprisonment, tends to undermine efforts to assist juveniles in reintegrating positively into the community. Criminalisation and periods spent in juvenile detention centres may have the reverse effect of turning these juveniles into adult criminals.

Young offenders are children first and foremost and should be protected by all the agreed human rights standards for children. This is one of the messages of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (“CRC”) which calls for a separate system of justice for children. Under the CRC, which has been ratified by all European countries, children are defined as those who are under 18 years old.

This point has been stressed by the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) in a position statement issued in 2003. These experts urged States “to review their juvenile justice systems against the requirements of the CRC and European human rights instruments”.

We need to separate the concepts of “responsibility” and “criminalisation”. It is essential to establish responsibility for conduct which contravenes the law. Where responsibility is disputed, there has to be a formal process to determine responsibility in a manner which respects the age and the capacity of the child. However, this does not have to be a criminal process nor involve the criminalization of children.

Once the facts of an offence are established, there would need to be a multi-disciplinary assessment of what is required to ensure awareness of the offence by the child. Such an assessment would also determine how best to respond to the needs of the victim and prevent the child from re-offending. Such measures would, where necessary, be compulsory. The proceedings would not identify the child publicly and would not be formally linked to the adult criminal justice system.

Imprisonment should generally be avoided. Any arrest or detention of a child should only be used as a measure of last resort and for the “shortest appropriate period of time”. The only justification for detaining children should be that they pose a continuing and serious threat to public safety. This requires frequent periodic review of the necessity of detention in each case. The conditions of any detention must be humane and focused on rehabilitation. Schooling should be provided as set out in the 2008 European Rules for Juvenile Offenders.

In many of my assessment reports, I underline the importance of keeping juveniles separate from adult offenders. A recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights against Turkey highlights the possible dire consequences of not respecting that important principle.

Guidelines on child-friendly justice are currently being discussed within the Council of Europe. The debate on the reform of the juvenile justice system should include the desirability of avoiding criminalisation and putting the best interests of the child at the forefront of the discussion.

In promoting such policies and procedures which respect the human rights of young offenders, the rights and concerns of victims are not neglected. Victims must receive appropriate reparation and support from the State. But victims’ interests – and those of the wider society – are not served by a system which fails to rehabilitate offenders.

During my visits to European countries I have met a number of juvenile inmates in prisons and detention centres. Many of them have suffered neglect and violent abuse within their own families and have received little support from society at large. Understanding the origins of violence and serious offending in children does not mean condoning or sympathising with it.

An effective and humane policy would put strong emphasis on prevention. Social workers are more important than prison guards in this context. Certainly, broader reforms for genuine social justice have to be part of a strategy to tackle the problem of youth offending.

Unfortunately, this has not been the focus of the public debate in several countries. Instead, people’s justified concerns about juvenile behaviour have been exploited for populist political purposes: children and young persons have been demonised and described as major threats to society.

The CRC encourages a minimum age to be set for criminal responsibility. Below such an age, it is presumed that a child does not have the capacity to infringe the penal law. Children in Scotland can be held criminally responsible at the age of eight years old. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the minimum age is 10. In many of the Nordic countries the age for criminal responsibility is set at 15 and in Belgium it is 18 years old. The Council of Europe’s European Committee of Social Rights (which monitors State compliance with the European Social Charter), the UN’s Committee on the Rights of the Child and other UN Treaty Bodies have all recommended substantial increases in a number of member states.

I would like to move the debate on from fixing an arbitrary age for criminal responsibility. Governments should now look for a holistic solution to juvenile offending which does not criminalise children for their conduct.

The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, while adopted 19 years ago, still provide the right benchmark. “Labelling a young person as ‘deviant’ or ‘delinquent’ or ‘pre-delinquent’ often contributes to the development of a consistent pattern of undesirable behaviour by young people…”.

Yes, it is in all our interests to stop making children criminals. We should therefore treat them as children while they are still children and save the criminal justice system for adults.

Thomas Hammarberg

Fantastic new movie

I just saw a wonderful film about young women in New York City who have been sexually exploited. It features the work of a fantastic organization, GEMS (Girls Education and Mentoring Services) that offers alternative to incarceration programs, counseling, and housing for young women involved in the sex trade. The move is a powerful portrayal of the violence that these young women experience, and I think powerfully conveys the coincidence of poverty, structural inequality, and violence. It is appearing on Showtime all of this month.
To read more about the film, go to the GEMS website, and consider making a donation to their organization, as your money will go far.

Petition to improve care for children in English jails

If you live in England or are an expatriate, I encourage you to sign this petition:

The Howard League for Penal Reform legal team has represented hundreds of troubled children in jail. Our case files tell stories of abused and neglected children with chaotic families and problems from mental health to addiction.  Please support our Growing up shut up campaign by taking action. Sign the petition and support our campaign to improve the care for children in the penal system by recognising the child behind the crime, improving access to justice for children, and making sure every child has a safe home.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/childjails/

Malign neglect on Rikers Island

A small story was published in the New York Daily News last week which I’m sure went unnoticed by many.  It reads:

Teen found dead in Rikers cell

By Simone Weichselbaum and Alison Gendar
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Monday, October 20th 2008, 1:25 AM

The NYPD is investigating the murder of an 18-year-old inmate found dead in his Rikers Island jail cell, officials said Sunday. Christopher Robinson was discovered faceup in his cell Saturday morning, his body covered by welts and bruises, police sources said.

City Correction Department officials worked to revive him, but he was declared dead at 11:58 a.m., sources said.

Detectives were poring over Rikers’ security tapes for hints at what might have happened, a police source said.

“He was given a beatdown, a fatal one,” another police source said.

The city medical examiner will determine a cause of death, but detectives from the 41st Precinct in the Bronx are investigating Robinson’s death as a homicide, police sources said.

I had actually heard word about this story through someone at my old office, who represented a young man who was in the same facility where this teenager died.  According to the young man, Christopher Robinson was first badly beaten, then left by himself in a cell by staff.  Whatever the facts are, what seems clear to me is that this is a case of neglect, and one which sadly happens every day at Riker’s Island.  The city can easily blame the ‘gang culture’ at the youth facility, the dangerousness of other young men, their inherent violence, or any other cause, but the simple fact is that when a young person enters that facility, it should be the responsibility of the staff at that facility to keep him–and all of the other young men held there–safe.

According to the Daily News, an internal investigation is taking place, and two officers have been placed on modified duty as a result of the incident.  Additionally, three teenagers are being sought in the young men’s murder.  However, I wish that there could be a more systematic challenge made to the system’s perspective on care in general.  It is outrageous–and criminal–that such a heinous act takes place behind the prison doors in this city, and in particular with the consequences focused almost entirely on the boys who participated in the beating, rather than the system more broadly.

New juvenile justice legislation in Alabama

From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The defender duties are based on Gault, the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges’ Delinquency Guidelines, IJA-ABA Standards, and NJDC’s
Ten Principles.  Under the revised code, a juvenile defender is called a
“child’s attorney” and is defined as “[a] licensed attorney who provides
legal services for a child, or for a minor in a mental commitment
proceeding, and who owes the same duties of undivided loyalty,
confidentiality, and competent representation to the child or minor as is
due an adult client.”  Ala. Code  12-15-102(5).  A juvenile defender’s
duties also include the following:

1.         Irrespective of the age of the child, meet with the child prior
to juvenile court hearings, when apprised of emergencies or significant
events impacting on the child, and as necessary to prepare for the juvenile
court proceeding.  The child’s attorney shall explain, in terms
understandable to the child, what is expected to happen at each stage of the
proceedings, as well as the rights of the child at each stage of the
proceedings.

2.         Conduct a prompt, thorough, and independent investigation of the
facts, the health, family, social history, and educational background of the
child, possible defenses, and applicable law, and seek discovery from the
prosecution.

3.         Based upon the investigation, advise the child, in terms he or
she can understand, as to his or her options for proceeding in the case and
the likely outcomes of the various courses of action.  Conduct the defense
in accordance with the expressed interests of the client regarding whether
to seek release from detention, whether to admit or deny the allegations,
whether to testify, whether to enter into a negotiated settlement, whether
to appeal, whether to accept or oppose a recommended disposition, and the
overall goals of the representation.

4.         Attend all hearings scheduled by the juvenile court and file all
necessary pleadings and motions to promote the expressed interests of the
child and protect his or her rights.

5.         Maintain familiarity with the dispositional resources available
through the juvenile court and in the community, and recommend appropriate
services to the child and the family.  Advocate in the dispositional process
to protect the rights of the client, meet the goals of the representation,
and ensure that the juvenile court is aware of any special needs of the
child that should be addressed in the dispositional process.

Ala. Code  12-15-202(f).  In addition, the Act:

*        Prohibits schools from filing ungovernable petitions against
students.  Ala. Code  12-15-102(15).

*        Distinguishes between a guardian ad litem and a juvenile defender
and articulates detailed duties for each.  Ala. Code   12-15-102(5) & (10);
-202(f), & -304(b)

*        Strengthens the authority of courts to divert cases by providing
that a formal petition may not be filed against a child unless a neutral and
detached magistrate has first determined that the filing of the petition is
in the best interests of the public and the child.  Ala. Code  12-15-120.
(Similar language was instrumental to the negotiation of the school offense
protocol in Clayton County, GA.)

*        Prohibits secure custody for status offenders.  The Act includes a
limited exception for status offenders who violate valid court orders.
Those children may be detained for up to 72 hours (total) in any six-month
period, but may not be committed to the Department of Youth Services.  Ala.
Code  12-15-208.

*        Prohibits secure custody for children under the age of 13, unless
the child is charged with a class A felony or another offense involving
death or serious bodily injury.  Ala. Code  12-15-208.

*        Codifies JJDPA mandates concerning jail removal and sight/sound
separation.  Ala. Code  12-15-208.

*        Eliminates the current requirement that a child must be placed in
alternative school following release from DYS or trial as an adult.
(formerly in Ala. Code  12-15-71.)

*        Clarifies that a child facing involuntary commitment is entitled to
an expressed interests attorney.  Ala. Code  12-15-405(b).

Resource

The Sentencing Project has put together a guide on the 2008 Presidential candidates’ positions on criminal justice issues.  While it is clear that none of the candidates has staked out clear and consistent positions on many of these issues, this guide is useful as a starting point in assessing the candidates general opinions.

See here for this guide:

presidentialcandidatesplatforms.pdf

Action Alert from the Drug Policy Alliance Network

Students Get a Raw Deal

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Dear Supporter,

Remember the Aid Elimination Penalty of the Higher Education Act we’ve been talking about? It’s the federal law that denies student loans and other education assistance to students convicted of a drug law violation. Tens of thousands of students have been kicked out of college because of it, mostly for simple possession of marijuana. Momentum is building to repeal this unfair law this year, but we need your help.

A few months ago, Rep. Barney Frank (MA) introduced legislation (H.R. 5157) to repeal the Aid Elimination Penalty. It now has 80 co-sponsors, more than enough to show House leadership that there’s support for ending the draconian penalty this year.

On the Senate side, Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT) has introduced legislation (S. 2767) that would give judges the option of letting students keep their school loans as part of a sentencing agreement that ensures they finish college. If enough senators co-sponsor S. 2767 we believe we can pass it this year–and that’s where you come in.

Please take a few minutes today to call your two U.S. senators and urge them to co-sponsor S. 2767.

Phone calls will make the biggest impact in this campaign. But if you can’t call, you can look up the email addresses and fax numbers for your two U.S. senators at http://www.senate.gov/ .

It is vital that all senators–Democrats and Republicans–hear from you. Congress needs to know that the American people want this law repealed. People shouldn’t be discriminated against simply for what they choose to put into their own bodies absent harm to others, and people convicted of drug law violations shouldn’t be denied opportunities to finish school and put their lives back together.

Thank you,

Bill Piper
Director of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

More Information:

In 1998 Congress passed an amendment offered by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) to the Higher Education Act (HEA) that bars people with drug law convictions–no matter how minor–from receiving student financial assistance for specified periods of time (a year to life depending on the severity and number of drug law violations). More than 200,000 people have been denied student loans and other assistance because of the law.

In 2006, Congress passed a partial reform of the penalty. This change amended the HEA to allow some students with past offenses to receive aid, but it still retains the penalty for those whose offenses were committed while they were enrolled in school and receiving aid. In other words, tens of thousands of students are still being kicked out of college for minor drug law offenses like simple marijuana possession.

Op-ed by young woman incarcerated in Florida

From the Ocala Star-Banner:

Locking up the young

State should rethink handling of juvenile criminals , even violent ones

BY REBECCA FALCON
SPECIAL TO THE STAR-BANNER

In 1997, at the age of 15, I was neither able to purchase cigarettes nor alcohol. I could not obtain a license, nor enter R-rated movies without a parent or guardian.

I anticipated my 16th birthday so that I would be eligible to apply for a job. In all aspects, I was considered a juvenile; however, when my life made a turn for the worse, and I committed a terrible crime, I was at least in the eyes of the criminal justice system, an adult.

Yes, somehow between going to school, talking on the phone and hanging out with a seemingly tough group of kids, I managed to exceed the limitations of my 15-year-old capacity and become an adult – because I committed a crime.

Many prosecutors in the U.S. stand firm that juveniles who “commit adult crimes must serve adult time.” However, it is wrong and misguided to claim that juveniles should be tried and sentenced as adults. Children are never adults and it can be more harmful than helpful to send a juvenile into an adult facility.

More so in the past 11 years than ever before, headlines and news reports have been filled with stories of children and teenagers being charged as adults for committing heinous crimes. Often times, the phrase “being tried as an adult” goes right into one ear and out of the other as we focus mainly on the alleged crime that the juvenile is being charged with, rather than on the juvenile who is accused of committing the crime.

The fact is often lost that this individual is still physically, mentally, emotionally and legally a child or teenager – not an adult.

The truth is many people, even within the criminal justice system itself, have no idea what it means for a juvenile to be placed into an adult correctional facility.

Many times, in the demand for justice, children are deemed as brutal, lethal and dangerous monsters, wise beyond their years and unredeemable; therefore, it is assumed to be necessary to impose harsh adult punishment on them without giving any thought to what will happen to the child after that.

Though a number of crimes committed by juveniles are severe and even brutal, the idea behind sentencing in any case should be to rehabilitate, discipline and offer the proper treatment needed so they may simultaneously make restitution for their crime and become upstanding citizens, rather than run the risk of being permanently damaged by an unequipped and dangerous adult facility.

Juvenile offenders in adult facilities are at a greater risk for victimization and self-inflicted harm than adult inmates and adolescents in the juvenile justice system.

Dr. Marty Beyer, a criminal psychologist, reported in 1997 that juvenile inmates in adults facilities were 500 times more likely to be beaten by staff than juveniles held within juvenile facilities.

A survey conducted by Justice Policy Institute found that young inmates within adult prisons make up the “prototype” of a rape victim in prison; juveniles in adult prisons are also eight times more likely to commit suicide than juveniles in juvenile facilities who are already at high risk.

More unfortunate, however, is that adult facilities have few safeguards to prevent such incidents from occurring.

When juveniles are placed in adult facilities, they may also be apt to pick up new criminal behaviors and tendencies as they are influenced by adult criminals in a hardened criminal environment.

Research shows that juvenile offenders who are sentenced to adult prisons are more likely than both their same-aged peers within juvenile facilities and adults serving time alongside them to re-offend upon release from prison. Official recidivism statistics from 15 states indicate that 82 percent of prisoners under the age of 18 were rearrested within three years of their release from adult prisons, compared to 66 percent of adults.

“Children are not simply miniature adults,” noted researchers in a 2001 report for the American Bar Association.

Juveniles are still in the developmental stage of adolescence. To reach proper maturity and rehabilitation, juvenile offenders are in need of the extensive and individual social, cognitive and psychological treatment and programming that is available to them in juvenile facilities.

There are thousands of members of juvenile justice organizations across the world who are addressing legislation to stop the incarceration of children as adults in the United States.

Although it is indisputable that juvenile crime must be punished, children are still children and there is no distinguishing line into adulthood that a child crosses when they commit a crime.

If children contain the capability to be considered as reasonable, responsible, decision-making adults, then give them all licenses, jobs and houses. Lift all age restrictions, curfews and, oh yes, the statutory rape law, since children are capable of making adult decisions about sex as well.

This will most likely never happen, yet children are still held as accountable adults when they commit serious crimes.

This seems to be a double standard that should be determined one way or the other. I submit to the public that the issue of juveniles being tried and sentenced as adults should be deeply reconsidered, and even prohibited.

Rebecca Falcon, now 26, is an inmate at Lowell Correctional Institution in Lowell, serving a life sentence for a 1997 conviction for murder and robbery in Bay County.

I wrote the paper for college about juveniles not being incarcerated as adults and my instructor suggested that I submit it to your paper.

There has been a lot of attention given to juvenile crime, but rarely does a juvenile actually get to speak out.

This is a somewhat formal article on what I have learned to be true in the situation f a juveniles incarcerated as adults.

I was arrested at 15 and convicted of a serious crime. I currently have a natural life sentence and am now 25 years old.

It is only by the grace of God that I am still alive today.

I really believe that the incarceration of juveniles in adult facilities is a matter that should seriously be reconsidered.