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.

UN report on violence against children in institutions

The UN has produced an excellent report on violence against children in institutions (both punitive and ‘care’ institutions).  It is a wide-ranging assessment of the issues involved in institutionalizing children globally, and provides some cogent and important recommendations.

Palestinian children in detention

From B’Tselem:

7 Sept. 2008: 13 minors, two of them girls, being held in administrative detention

According to B’Tselem’s figures, on 31 August 2008, Israel was holding 13 Palestinian minors, two of them girls, in prolonged administrative detention in Israel, in breach of law. At the end of June 2008, 730 Palestinians were being held in administrative detention in Israel.

The two girls, Salwa Salah and Sarra Sirwah, both 17 years old, were detained on 5 June 2008 in the middle of the night and are being held in Damon Prison together with adult female prisoners. The detention orders against them were issued for four months, but can be extended an indefinite number of times for up to six months each time.

Administrative detention is carried out solely on the basis of an administrative order, without a judicial determination, without an indictment being filed, and without a trial. Given that administrative detention infringes the right to freedom and due process, and in light of the clear danger of abuse, international law imposes rigid limitations in its use.

Over the years, Israel has detained Palestinians for long periods of time without bringing them to court or even telling them of the suspicions against them. When detainees appeal their detention, neither they nor their attorneys are allowed to see the allegedly incriminating evidence. By acting in this way, Israel shows utter disregard for defenses available to suspects in Israeli and international law, which are intended to ensure the right to liberty and due process, the right of persons to state their case, and the presumption of innocence.
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in administrative detention of minors in Israel, an especially grave phenomenon. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child states, in article 37, states that, “No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.”

The government of Israel must release all administrative detainees and cease using this unlawful, sweeping practice. If there is sufficient evident to prosecute a person being held in administrative detention, then an indictment should be filed and a trial held.

Number of Palestinian minors Israel has held in administrative detention

Dignity in Schools

I’ve just read about an interesting campaign called ‘Dignity in Schools.’ They are focused on challenging the current punitive environment in schools and instead advocating a more human rights-centered model in schools.  They’ve put together some great resources on the issue of young people being pushed out of school, and offer a number of links to projects that are going on locally to address the school to jail pipeline.

Challenging the image of the child solider

I heard a brilliant talk this week by David Rosen of Farleigh Dickinson University and Susan Rakosi Rosenbloom of Drew University.  They are interesting in problematizing some of the popular representations of child soldiers, and they do this by examining both the historical and contemporary representations of them.  Rosen has written a book called ‘Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism,’ which I haven’t yet read, but seems to encapsulate some of these argues.  The thrust of them is this:

1) If we re-examine the history of conflict in places like England and America in the last two hundred years, both through cultural representations and through the popular media, we can see many examples of young soldiers who were seen as heroes who made great sacrifices for their country–see Johnny Tremain and Gavroche in Les Miserables as examples.

2) The face of the contemporary ‘child soldier’ is almost inevitably black or brown, and is described as the manifestation of the horrors of third world life.

3) The change in this history may well coincide with changes in popular representations of childhood, shifts in discourses of imperialism to ‘development,’ and perhaps even some of the

3)  The discourse of development agencies interested in challenging the practice of child soldiers draws on the language of children’s ‘rights,’ yet imposes a peculiarly Western concept of childhood on these contexts, often neglecting to contextualize violence against children in a broader socio-structural context that has arisen in part because of Western structural adjustment policies.

I am not doing this work justice.  See here for a brief article by David Rosen that is a response to a book review of his work.  It encapsulates some of his arguments.

This work I think is an important problematization of an issue that seems to have unquestioned moral validity in Western human rights discourses.

A much needed update

It has been far too long since I’ve last posted to this page, an unfortunate trap that I knew I might eventually fall into in starting a page like this.  Part of the problem has been that I have spent the last two months thinking in great depth about my plans to conduct field work in the youth justice system.  This process has meant that I am constantly engaged in a process of questioning, then re-questioning where I stand on my philosophies and principles about youth justice.  This translates into difficulty in writing in a space that perhaps demands a bit more certainty in opinion.

Lately I’ve been thinking quite a lot about developing a method or approach for researching young people’s experiences in the youth justice system.  My politics draw me to methods that abide by several principles.  In researching young people, I feel like I need to develop a relationship that is: 1) non-exploitative 2) reflexive of what I bring to the table, both in terms of my class, race, and gender and my previous experience as a policymaker and a social worker and 3) creative 4) most accurately represents young people’s voice.  There have been two traditions that I have been increasingly drawn to.  

One:  Students as Researchers.  This approach cultivates and trains students to conduct research in schools that is directed at policy change.  There has been some wonderful work done in this field to develop strategies for training students to critically assess their education environments.  For me, one of the potentials of this kind of research is also a critical engagement with education as a social and political process–ie. engaging students in thinking about how (state-based) education relates to citizenship.  

Two: Participatory Action Research.  This is an exciting approach to research which is aimed at engaging participants as researchers and is focused on developing research for change.  Here is some information on some of the key tenets of PAR.  One of this tenets is the notion that participatory action research is a political process.  I think this nicely addresses one of the facts of research that has been acknowledged since the inception of the philosophy of social science, and most significantly by Thomas Kuhn–that scientific theories are value-laden, and that we cannot ignore this fact in our pursuit of social science.  

There are some promising features of these kinds of methods in engaging with young people charged with crimes.  I think that in a context in which young people are actually expected to participate in the making and re-making of their lives, it would seem a worthwhile endeavor to engage young people in a participatory strategy that helps them to reflect on that very idea of ‘participation’ that is promulgated by the courts.  Does it in fact recognize young people’s autonomy?  Do young people charged with crimes actually have autonomy, or is it bounded and delimited?

These are just some rambling thoughts, but I’m putting them out there in an effort to begin a dialogue that I hope to continue to update more regularly now.

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 Justice Policy Institute has issued an excellent report about the conditions of confinement in juvenile detention.  This report draws from social science research that addresses some of the harms of confinement for young people.  The report is well-researched, thorough and concise.

The report can be seen here: Dangers of Detention

New Legislation in New York

The New York State legislature has just passed a ‘bill of rights’ for incarcerated youth which, at least in spirit, offers a real opportunity to hear youth input on the conditions of confinement. The text of the bill is below

A09070 Memo:

BILL NUMBER:A9070B TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the social services law, in relation to residential programs for children PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The purpose of this bill is to outline specific rights afforded to youth in OCFS residential facilities; and establish a youth advisory board within these facilities. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: *outline a bill of rights for youth in secure and non-secure residential care *require the publication of such rights and distribution to residents upon orientation at the facilities *require the creation of “youth advisory board(s)” within OCFS residen- tial facilities EFFECTS OF PRESENT LAW WHICH THIS BILL WOULD ALTER: S462-b of the Social Service Law is renumbered section 462-d. Two new sections are added 462-b and 462-c. JUSTIFICATION: In December 2006, staff members of the New York State Assembly conducted site visits to three Office of Children and Families( OCFS) residential facilities which included: The Tryon boys, Tryon girls residential facility and the Lansing residential facility. Staff met with youth and members of the staff at each of these facilities to hear their concerns about living conditions, educational opportunities, and the residents overall interaction with Youth Developmental Aides (YDA). After listening to issues raised by residents, The staff recommended that legislation be drafted to require the Office of Children and Family Services to inform residents upon orientation, their rights under exist- ing law. In addition, one of the concerns that youth raised during the meetings with Assembly staff was the inability to offer input to manage- ment staff at OCFS facilities as it relates to their care. This bill will require that OCFS establish a youth advisory board that will give youth in care an opportunity to convey concerns and suggestions to to management staff within OCFS facilities. PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New bill. FISCAL IMPLICATION FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: None. EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately.

Immediately.