January 04, 2011, 03:15 AM By Michelle Durand Daily Journal Staff
The last-minute sentence commutation of a woman serving life without parole for killing her pimp at age 16 has given a Peninsula state senator hope this is the year California abolishes the absolute term for all juvenile offenders.
As one of his final gubernatorial acts, Arnold Schwarzenegger granted clemency to convicted murderer Sara Kruzan by reducing her sentence to 25 years to life in prison. While the change doesn’t guarantee freedom to Kruzan, who fatally shot the man in 1994, it does offer the possibility.
State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/San Mateo, has long argued that all juvenile offenders deserve the chance at rehabilitation and release rather than being incarcerated at a young age with no hope of parole. He initially proposed completely outlawing the sentence but it failed to pass. Last year, Yee successfully pushed a tweaked version known as the Fair Sentencing for Youth Act through the Senate with bipartisan support but it died in the Assembly during the final days of the session. He reintroduced the legislation, now known as Senate Bill 9, last month.
The earliest committee hearing on the bill will be late January, said Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin.
California’s Proposition 21 allows prosecutors to charge juveniles as adults in a host of felony crimes, such as sexual assault and gang activity. Under the law, any juvenile charged with murder and special circumstances must be tried as an adult.
Yee’s bill does not abolish life without parole outright but would give courts leeway to review convictions after 10 years and consider changing some sentences to a minimum of 25 years to life.
Yee’s several attempts to pass the bill have been supported strongly by psychiatric and child advocacy groups but opposed by the California District Attorneys Association and California Police Chiefs Association. San Mateo County’s longtime former district attorney also opposed any change to the law.
The new year and new governor gives Yee optimism that 2011 will prove different although the biggest ray of hope was Schwarzenegger’s batch of final sentence reductions, including that of Kruzan.
Yee often used Kruzan’s case as an example of why offenders convicted as juveniles are capable of turning their lives around and may not have gotten the best shot at justice during trial.
“The case of Sara Kruzan demonstrates why we should never sentence a child to life without the possibility of parole — a sentence to die in prison,” Yee said in a prepared statement.
Kruzan, raised in Riverside by an abusive and drug-addicted mother, was groomed at age 11 for a life of prostitution, according to Yee’s office.
George Howard sexually assaulted Kruzan and put her to work at 13. Barely past age 16, Kruzan fatally shot the 37-year-old man and was sentenced to life without parole over the recommendations of both the California Youth Authority and a psychiatrist that she was suitable for rehabilitation.
Kruzan, now 33, has spent more than 16 years in prison and has more time to serve before now being eligible for parole. However, she is grateful to Schwarzenegger, said a member of her legal team.
“Gov. Schwarzenegger recognized that Sarah’s sentence of life without possibility of parole was excessive because of her young age at the time of the crime and the significant abuse she endured,” said Pat Arthur, who is also with the National Center for Youth law, in a statement.
Through her attorney, Kruzan expressed remorse for her crime and gratitude toward Schwarzenegger and her many supporters.
Yee applauded the governor’s act, too, but added the reminder that “there are many more Sara Kruzans out there who are also deserving of a more appropriate sentence.”
The Human Rights Watch estimated 59 percent of youth sentenced to life without parole had no prior criminal convictions and 45 percent of those involved in a homicide did not actually kill the victim.
Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.
Advocates for Abandoned Adolescents - Our Mission is to do better!
The title of this post is the headline of this interesting article from Florida Today. Here are a few excerpts:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in May that it was unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life in prison for non-murderous crimes. While three Florida juveniles have been resentenced, the ruling offers no relief to [those convicted of murder]....
According to a report issued in 2000 by the U.S. Department of Justice, 45 states have passed or amended legislation since 1992 making it easier to prosecute juveniles as adults. The report states that the number of inmates under 18 confined in adult prisons more than doubled between 1990 and 2000....
Florida State University law professor Paolo Annino has spearheaded efforts to bring the possibility of parole back for juveniles sentenced to life or very long sentences. He is the author of a bill, the Second Chance for Children in Prison Act, that would bring back the possibility of parole for children who were sentenced to more than 10 years in prison.
The children must have served at least eight years, must be considered rehabilitated, and must not have any disciplinary reports for the previous two years, among other requirements....
Annino's bill faces competition this year with a State Attorney's Association bill that would grant the possibility of parole for juveniles sentenced to life for crimes other than murder and after 25 years in prison.
Advocates for Abandoned Adolescents - Our Mission is to do better!
Should an 11-year-old who allegedly kills a 26-year-old pregnant woman and mother of two with a shotgun be charged as an adult? That's the question in Pennsylvania.
The facts are simple. An 11-year-old received a shotgun as a gift for Christmas from his dad. He was a good shot, and won a turkey shoot less than two weeks before the shooting -- beating out several adults. The victim was his father's girlfriend who was pregnant with his father's child. The boy and his father were living in the same home with the victim and her two daughters, just seven and four years old.
The issue of children being prosecuted as adults has always been controversial. Our belief that children should be treated differently stems from a society trying to protect those who are young and capable of reform. On the other hand, there are those who believe the punishment should fit the crime, not the criminal.
The United States Supreme Court has held that the purpose of juvenile courts is to seek rehabilitation, supervision or provide counseling. Treatment of juveniles is usually more lenient than for adults. The purpose is to protect youth and guide them to more productive lives, while still holding them accountable to some degree for their actions.
Juvenile court proceedings are generally private and held in rooms separate from adult courtrooms. If the offender is found delinquent, a probation officer prepares a more detailed report recommending a sentence. The harshest treatment is a sentence in a locked juvenile facility.
Historically, the fact that children were treated differently often caused a deprivation of their rights. The United States Supreme Court in 1967 dealt with this issue in a landmark case (In re Gault). There, a 15-year-old was arrested for making dirty remarks over the telephone. He was arrested and kept in custody. His parents were not advised that he was in police custody nor were they advised of the charges against him. He was held in a detention facility for a week. No record of the proceeding was kept; and the witness to whom he made the call didn't even appear in court. He was sentenced to spend the next six years in a state school until he was 21 years old. His parents were poor, did not have a high school education and only had $100, but pursued the matter and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the highest court in the land, extending rights to children that adults customarily had, overturned his conviction.
The decision to prosecute a child as an adult is a difficult one. I know. I have made the decision to prosecute a 12-year-old killer as an adult. The choice is not about being "hard" or being compassionate. It is about recognizing the evil that accompanies a killer's choice to take the life of an innocent pregnant woman and mother of two, whose children will never get to hug their mother again because an angry "boy" with a gun decided she should die.
Once a decision is made to prosecute a juvenile as an adult, the case is transferred to an adult court. Such a transfer can have serious sentencing consequences -- the juvenile can be sentenced to life or even death (if he or she is over age 18 years old at the time of sentencing).
In the case at hand, the District Attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania has made the decision to prosecute this 11-year-old as an adult. He bases this on the theory that the crime was "premeditated," in that the boy first came downstairs with a weapon and was seen by the victim's seven-year-old daughter.
He reversed course, went back to his room, and put a blanket over the gun. He then returned to the first floor bedroom where his victim was sleeping and shot her in the back of the head.
There are reports that the 11-year-old had threatened to kill his victim and her daughters for months.
His callous action -- throwing a spent shell casing from his shotgun, before getting on a bus to go to school, was witnessed by the seven-year-old girl. That shell casing was later recovered by the police.
A three judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania met in Pittsburgh on Tuesday to determine whether or not Jordan Anthony Brown should be tried as an adult. A County Court judge already refused to move Brown's case to juvenile court. If tried as an adult Brown faces life in prison but would be free by age 21 if he was tried in juvenile court.
I agree with the decision to try Brown as an adult because it appears that this boy plotted to kill his father's fiance. He not only threatened to kill her, he, at first, hid the gun and then picked up shell casing before getting on the bus to go to school.
Judge Jeanine Pirro is the host of "Justice with Judge Jeanine" which airs Saturday evenings at 9 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel. She is also the host of a daytime courtshow "Judge Pirro." She is a former County Court Judge and District Attorney of Westchester County, New York .
January 04, 2011, 03:15 AM By Michelle Durand Daily Journal Staff
The last-minute sentence commutation of a woman serving life without parole for killing her pimp at age 16 has given a Peninsula state senator hope this is the year California abolishes the absolute term for all juvenile offenders.
As one of his final gubernatorial acts, Arnold Schwarzenegger granted clemency to convicted murderer Sara Kruzan by reducing her sentence to 25 years to life in prison. While the change doesn’t guarantee freedom to Kruzan, who fatally shot the man in 1994, it does offer the possibility.
State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/San Mateo, has long argued that all juvenile offenders deserve the chance at rehabilitation and release rather than being incarcerated at a young age with no hope of parole. He initially proposed completely outlawing the sentence but it failed to pass. Last year, Yee successfully pushed a tweaked version known as the Fair Sentencing for Youth Act through the Senate with bipartisan support but it died in the Assembly during the final days of the session. He reintroduced the legislation, now known as Senate Bill 9, last month.
The earliest committee hearing on the bill will be late January, said Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin.
California’s Proposition 21 allows prosecutors to charge juveniles as adults in a host of felony crimes, such as sexual assault and gang activity. Under the law, any juvenile charged with murder and special circumstances must be tried as an adult.
Yee’s bill does not abolish life without parole outright but would give courts leeway to review convictions after 10 years and consider changing some sentences to a minimum of 25 years to life.
Yee’s several attempts to pass the bill have been supported strongly by psychiatric and child advocacy groups but opposed by the California District Attorneys Association and California Police Chiefs Association. San Mateo County’s longtime former district attorney also opposed any change to the law.
The new year and new governor gives Yee optimism that 2011 will prove different although the biggest ray of hope was Schwarzenegger’s batch of final sentence reductions, including that of Kruzan.
Yee often used Kruzan’s case as an example of why offenders convicted as juveniles are capable of turning their lives around and may not have gotten the best shot at justice during trial.
“The case of Sara Kruzan demonstrates why we should never sentence a child to life without the possibility of parole — a sentence to die in prison,” Yee said in a prepared statement.
Kruzan, raised in Riverside by an abusive and drug-addicted mother, was groomed at age 11 for a life of prostitution, according to Yee’s office.
George Howard sexually assaulted Kruzan and put her to work at 13. Barely past age 16, Kruzan fatally shot the 37-year-old man and was sentenced to life without parole over the recommendations of both the California Youth Authority and a psychiatrist that she was suitable for rehabilitation.
Kruzan, now 33, has spent more than 16 years in prison and has more time to serve before now being eligible for parole. However, she is grateful to Schwarzenegger, said a member of her legal team.
“Gov. Schwarzenegger recognized that Sarah’s sentence of life without possibility of parole was excessive because of her young age at the time of the crime and the significant abuse she endured,” said Pat Arthur, who is also with the National Center for Youth law, in a statement.
Through her attorney, Kruzan expressed remorse for her crime and gratitude toward Schwarzenegger and her many supporters.
Yee applauded the governor’s act, too, but added the reminder that “there are many more Sara Kruzans out there who are also deserving of a more appropriate sentence.”
The Human Rights Watch estimated 59 percent of youth sentenced to life without parole had no prior criminal convictions and 45 percent of those involved in a homicide did not actually kill the victim.
Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.
Governor Ritter changed the lives of nearly thirty Colorado residents Friday who had been convicted of serious crimes by granting them a pardon or commutation resulting from a further review of their case.
Governor Ritter changed the lives of nearly thirty Colorado residents Friday who had been convicted of serious crimes by granting them a pardon or commutation resulting from a further review of their case.
Gov. Bill Ritter Friday approved 28 pardons and commutations, including commutations for four individuals who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.
“After carefully reviewing each of these cases, I believe it serves the interests of justice − without compromising public safety − to grant these pardons and commutations,” said Gov. Ritter. Ritter spent nearly two decades as a criminal prosecutor, including 12 years as Denver's district attorney.
Gov. Ritter established the nation's first Juvenile Clemency Board in 2007 to review commutation requests from offenders who, as juveniles, were tried, convicted and sentenced as adults. Today's commutations are the first issued under this new system. The cases include the following: Juvenile Clemencies Charles E. Limbrick Jr. a Colorado Springs man who in 1989 was sentenced to life for the first-degree murder of his mother. He was 15 when, in September 1988, Limbrick waited at the foot of the stairs in the family's home on Potter Drive and shot his mother, Betty, in the head. Today's action awards parole, for the maximum allowable term of five years, effective July 1, 2011. Dietrick Mitchell who in 1992 was sentenced to life for first-degree murder. Eligible for parole in 2031, his sentence is now commuted to 32 years and his parole eligibility date will be recalculated. Sean Steele who in 1997 was sentenced to 48 years for second-degree murder, 32 years for robbery and in 2004 to 15 months for drug possession. Eligible for parole in 2031, his eligibility date will be recalculated based on a single 48-year sentence. Sean Taylor who in 1990 was sentenced to life for first-degree murder. Eligible for parole in 2029, he is granted parole, for the maximum allowable term of five years, effective July 1, 2011. Commutations: Jesse I. Cluff who in 1994 was sentenced to prison for 48 years for aggravated robbery. Eligible for parole in 2014, he is granted parole, for the maximum allowable term of five years, effective July 1, 2011. Gary E. Izor who has served time since the 1970s for homicide, DUI and escape. Eligible for parole in 2016, he is granted parole, for the maximum allowable term of five years, effective July 1, 2011. Christopher S. Kemp who in 1993 was sentenced to prison for aggravated robbery. Eligible for parole in 2031, he is now eligible on Dec. 31, 2013. Jennifer Reali who in 1992 was sentenced to life for first-degree murder and 24 years for conspiracy to commit murder. Reali was convicted of killing Dianne Hood, the wife of Reali's lover, in Colorado Springs. Eligible for parole in 2030, she is now eligible on June 25, 2011. Stanley Reese who in 1995 was sentenced to 48 years for burglary, 24 years for theft and one year for criminal mischief. Eligible for parole in 2013, he is granted parole, for the maximum allowable term of five years, effective July 1, 2011. Robert F. Willner who in 1991 was sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder. In 2003, his sentence was modified to life with the possibility of parole in 40 years. He is now granted parole elibility on Dec. 8, 2015. Pardons: Ginger Sue Carmichael who in 2004 pleaded guilty to drug charges and has completed her sentence. Alan Edwin Fahrenbruch who in 1962 was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and has completed his sentence. William Rolland Fitzwater who in 1991 was convicted of drug possession and has completed his sentence. Joseph Matthew Gallegos who in 1998 was convicted of domestic-violence assault and menacing and has completed his sentence. Antasia Giebler who in 1998 pleaded guilty to vehicular eluding and being an accessory to the crime and has completed her sentence
. Desiree Greeno who in 1990 pleaded guilty to theft and has completed her sentence. Courtney Morgan Hart who in 2000 pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a financial transaction device and has completed her sentence. David Sean Herron who in 1995 pleaded guilty to theft and has completed his sentence. Joshua M. Karp who in 2001 pleaded guilty to a municipal domestic violence offense and has completed his sentence. Gary Lee Levi Sr. who in 1966 pleaded no contest to a felony charge of short check and has completed his sentence. Kevin B. Reeves who in 2009 was charged with felony criminal impersonation and has completed the terms of a deferred judgment and sentence. Shannon Louise Robledo who in 1997 pleaded guilty to larceny and has completed her sentence. Elizabeth Helen Schmidl who in 1995 pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft and has completed her sentence. Michael J. Schneider who in 1993 was convicted of criminal trespass, attempted escape and third-degree assault and has completed his sentence. Brian Andrew Severson who in 1989, while a juvenile, pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault on a child and has completed his sentence. Patricia M. Sweeney who in 1996 pleaded guilty to assault and administration of a drug and has completed her sentence. Doyle T. Tobel who in 1984 pleaded guilty to attempted sale of a narcotic and has completed his sentence. Kevin Turnock who in 1988 pleaded guilty to misdemeanor shoplifting and has completed his sentence.
By Daniel Tencer Tuesday, January 25th, 2011 -- 8:46 pm
Boy's claim of innocence prompted judge to try him as adult
A Pennsylvania boy who was 11 years old when he allegedly shot and killed his father's pregnant fiancee could find himself being the youngest person ever sentenced to life without parole.
Human rights campaigners have said the case shows the US' justice system to be unusually harsh towards juvenile offenders, and argue that a life sentence for the boy could violate international law.
Prosecutors allege that Jordan Brown, now 13, shot and killed 26-year-old Kenzie Houk as she slept in her home in Lawrence County, near Pittsburgh, in February, 2009. Houk was pregnant with a nearly full-term child at the time. Brown was charged with two counts of homicide.
Brown's lawyers on Tuesday argued an appeal against a judge's earlier decision to have the adolescent tried as an adult.
Pennsylvania's laws on juvenile trials are among the least accommodating in the country, with juvenile suspects in homicide cases automatically tried as adults, unless a judge decides otherwise.
According to WTAE in Pittsburgh, the judge's original decision to try Brown as an adult was based on Brown's refusal to admit guilt. Brown's lawyers argued Wednesday that the decision violated his right to be presumed innocent, as well as his right to avoid self-incrimination.
Deborah Houk, the victim's mother, had little sympathy for Jordan Brown's plight.
"He knew what he was doing. He killed my baby," she said of Brown in an interview not long after the murders. The Houk family has put up a website attempting to dispel a growing movement seeking to defend Brown.
But human rights group Amnesty International said that Brown is the youngest person the international organization knows of anywhere in the world facing a life sentence without possibility of parole.
"It is shocking that anyone this young could face life imprisonment without parole, let alone in a country which labels itself as a progressive force for human rights," Susan Lee, Amnesty International's director for the Americas, said in a statement.
Amnesty notes that the US is one of only two countries in the world who have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Somalia is the other country.
Jordan Brown is the youngest person known to Amnesty International to be currently at risk of being sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole. However, there are already at least 2,500 people in the US serving life imprisonment without parole for crimes committed when they were under 18.
According to the Guardian, Pennsylvania has 450 juveniles serving life sentences, more than any other state.
The Supreme Court has been moving in recent years towards greater protection for juvenile offenders. It ended the death penalty for people under 18 in 2005, and last year made homicide the only crime for which juveniles can be given a life sentence.
The Washington-based Sentencing Project told the Guardian that the US is the only country in the world that has juveniles serving life without parole. "That leads to only two conclusions: either kids in the US are far more violent than those in the rest of the world, or the US has developed uniquely harsh sentences."
Jordan Brown's father, whose fiancee was killed that night in 2009, agreed with the Sentencing Project, saying his son was too young to fully understand the consequences of his actions.
"Try to explain to a 12-year-old what the rest of your life means," he said. "It's incomprehensible for him."
Advocates for Abandoned Adolescents - Our Mission is to do better!
Dupure was a B average student before she was arrested. She had dreams of specialising in the treatment of heart defects as a medical lab tech. She wasn't a party girl. She hadn't ever committed a crime.
Then she met William Blevins while working at a grocery store. The nineteen year old charmed her and they began to date.
It didn't take long for Dupure to become pregnant. Blevins was thrown out of his home shortly after that. On April 23,2004 they were looking for a motel room to rent. That was a date that changed Dupure's life forever.
The couple went to Big Boy for a bite to eat. What happens next differs depending on who you talk to.
Shirley Perry, 89, lived close to the Big Boy. She was the best friend of Dupure's great-aunt. The pair had been to her place helping her out with odd jobs and shopping.
The official story is that Dupure and Blevins went to Perry's to kill her for her money. They took a mere $30 from the elderly woman after assaulting her with a cooking pot and stabbing her to death. Dupure is alleged to have fetched the knife from Perry's kitchen to give to Blevin's to stab the woman.
That's the official story.
Dupure's story is drastically different. she states that she was never at Perry's apartment to begin with. That Blevins acted alone and that she was sitting at the Big Boy's waiting for her boyfriend to return oblivious to the murder.
Blevin's version mirrored Dupure's for quite some time. That is until he went on trial. The prosecution gave him the lesser charge of second degree murder for 'ratting' Dupure out.
Under cross-examination, he conceded to the jury, "I never had intentions to pin it on her until I ran out of options."
The only certainty of the case is that the one with the lighter sentence was the one who committed the murder. There was NO forensic evidence tying Dupure to the scene of the crime. Just the word of a man who stabbed an elderly woman to death hoping for a lighter sentence.
During the trial the prosecution relied on Blevin's testimony. The defense may have thought they had an ace in their deck with the testimony of a fellow jail inmate of Blevins who stated on the stand that Blevins had ulterior motives for implicating Dupure.
It didn't matter, in the end jurors took between five and six hours in deliberation before finding Nicole Ann Dupure, 19, guilty as charged with first-degree murder in the stabbing and strangling death of Shirley Perry, 89.
Dupure learned her fate when she entered prison. For a time she was on Prozac for depression.
The prison doctor put her on Prozac but she stopped taking it; as she puts it, "I'm depressed because I'm in this place, not because I'm depressed."
And what is the most shocking:
Technically, a child of any age could be incarcerated for life in Michigan for first-degree murder. Above the age of 14, suspects can be placed directly into the adult court system. At that point, even the judges' hands are tied. If a child is convicted in an adult court of a range of serious offences - taking part in a robbery that leads to murder, say - they must automatically be given life without parole, even where the judge feels that is inappropriate.
That's correct, in the state of Michigan a child is sentenced more harshly than an adult. Had Dupure had been 18 at the time of the crime she would not be facing a life in prison.(!!!)
Under UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, sentencing minors to life imprisonment is prohibited. The ONLY two countries worldwide that had not ratified this convention are Somalia (probably only because there is no government to do so), and self-proclaimed bastion of human rights and fair-trial, USA.
So lets recapitulate: Juvenile teen gets sentenced for LIFE without parole based ONLY on the testimony of a MURDERER, who was MOTIVATED to do so because otherwise he would get much harsher punishment? And the murderer gets lighter sentence than she?
How can a witness testimony of a murderer be enough to convince someone of any crime without any supporting evidence?
How can a witness testimony unsupported by any evidence even be taken into consideration by a serious court, when testimoner can clearly gain very much by giving false statement?
How can a juvenile teen be convicted for life based ONLY on the above?
I cant believe this, people. If this kind of thing happened in my country, I would be bombarding my representatives with DDoSes worth of letters, and organizing protests in the streets immidiatelly. Anyone here from Michigan?! If I wont see tomorrow in the news that all american ATS members are out there in the streets protesting for IMMIDIATE release of this girl, I would be seriously disappointed!!!
Advocates for Abandoned Adolescents - Our Mission is to do better!
Help a juvenile understand the juvenile court process.
Comstock Images/Comstock/Getty Images
If a minor breaks the law and police arrest him, the minor then enters the state's juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system -- police, detention, court and corrections -- work cooperatively with the common goal of rehabilitating the juvenile to discourage him from committing future illegal acts. Because the juvenile system can be confusing, help the juvenile by explaining the court process thoroughly.
Difficulty: Moderate
Instructions
1
Explain to the minor that the arrest was the first step of the juvenile system. At the time of the arrest, the police decide whether to confine the minor in juvenile detention or release him to a guardian. If released to a guardian, the minor will receive a hearing date notice in the mail. If detained, the minor will stay in a detention center until a detention hearing.
2
Tell the juvenile about a detention hearing, if he is detained in a detention center. In this situation, a detention hearing must occur within 24 to 48 hours of the detention in order for a judge to hear the facts and decide whether the juvenile needs continued detention.
3
Explain that an initial hearing will follow, in which the juvenile and his guardians will learn the formal charges. The judge will explain the juvenile's rights and will release him to a guardian's custody unless detention is necessary.
4
Advise the juvenile that the period leading up to the hearing is when attorneys for the state and the defense perform discovery. This means that the attorneys learn about the incident, they read all available reports and statements written and compiled by the police and they formulate their cases. The attorney for the state prepares to prosecute the juvenile and the attorney for the juvenile prepares a defense.
5
Explain the evidentiary hearing. This is the equivalent of an adult trial, except juvenile court does not have jury trials. The judge will listen to testimony, prosecution and defense and will then pronounce a sentence. Sentence may involve probation, community service, fines and detention, depending on the severity of the crime.
The juvenile court system is in place to keep youthful offenders accountable and to ensure the safety of communities. Jurisdiction processes for juveniles vary from state to state, but the outcomes of such cases are often similar. Judges preside over most juvenile hearings.
Probation
A juvenile may be placed on either informal or formal probation. Informal probation consists of attending school or counseling, obeying curfews and other laws and listening to parents. Formal probation means the juvenile must report to a probation officer who monitors his activities, sets up treatment, such as substance abuse counseling, vocational classes or anger management, and reports to the court. The juvenile may also be required to pay fines or complete community service.
Release
The judge may opt to release the juvenile, usually to the custody of her parents, with no further sanctions. Usually, this is for minor infractions, such as curfew violation.
Adult Court
The juvenile case may be transferred to adult court depending on the severity of the crime and the age of the offender. For example, Florida permits transfer of 14-year-old children to adult court, and anyone charged with a capital offense may also be tried as an adult, regardless of age.
Detention
The judge can sentence the juvenile to a detention facility or to a residential treatment facility for an unspecified length of time.
While it might be considered common practice to treat juveniles and adults differently as regards crime these days, this is a relatively new, legal development. The first juvenile court in America was founded in the year 1899, and for most of history before that juveniles were treated the same as adults. Adult waivers are what are issued to push juveniles into an adult court, essentially duplicating the spirit of how things used to be.
Waiver
A juvenile justice waiver is a document that's issued when a juvenile is taken out of the juvenile justice system and put into the adult court system. This is what happens when you hear that a juvenile offender will be tried as an adult.
Crimes
Juvenile justice waivers aren't issued for just any sort of crime committed by a juvenile offender. The crime that the juvenile committed should be egregious, according to Findlaw.com, such as murder, rape, or serial commission of crimes deemed by the court to be heinous in nature.
Age
Even with these criminal waivers there are still age limits that a juvenile must meet before he can be remanded to a higher court. In many states this limit is 17 or 18 years old, but some states go as low as 14 years old according to Findlaw.com. The nature of age and crime is an area of hot dispute, especially when people have to decide whether a 12 or 13 year old offender had the same malice and capability to truly understand what she was doing as a 27 or 30 year old offender would.
Rights
Juvenile offenders have more rights and protections than adult offenders do. This is part of the reason that juvenile justice waivers are given in many cases. If the crime is bad enough that the juvenile should be tried as an adult, then doing so strips away many protections that juveniles have regarding search and seizure, admission of guilt, and the required presence of the juvenile's parents as well as a lawyer.
Exclusion
There are 28 states in the U.S. (as of 1997) where certain crimes are not allowed to be tried at a juvenile court level. While a hearing may still take place for a juvenile waiver to go to the higher court, crimes like first degree murder may not be tried in some juvenile courts at all. Once again these crimes tend to be the more egregious variety of criminal offenses.
A juvenile detention center is a residential facility that is the result of a youth being found guilty of an offense and can also happen after an arrest or during court proceedings. Some cases can result in the case being transferred to criminal court, although this is in only a few cases.
Average Age of Juveniles in Detention Centers
The juvenile offender population comprises 85 percent mails and 15 percent females, according to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The average age for first-time delinquency is 15.2 years of age and they usually entered the system before age 14. The average age for violent juvenile offenders is 15.8 years of age
Nonviolent Offenses
Sixty-four percent of the juvenile population in detention centers is there for nonviolent offenses. The males made up a majority of this population at 86.1 percent and the female offenders, 13.9 percent, according to OJJDP.
Violent Offenses
Thirty-six percent of the juvenile population in detention centers is there for violent offenses. The males constituted 87.5 percent of these offenders and female offenders 12.5 percent, according to OJJDP. Most facilities contain a mix of violent and nonviolent offenders.
Detained vs. Committed
Detained offenders are those that awaiting adjudication, disposition or placement elsewhere. Committed offenders are those who have been held by court orders. Some of these offenders are not held by juvenile but, criminal courts. Thirty-four percent of committed and less than 4 percent of detained offenders remain in placement six months after admission. On average offenders stay 147 days after admission, according to OJJDP.
Disadvantages to Arrangement
The juvenile justice system takes on a very big task when admitting youth into a residential facility. It has to provide mental health care, substance abuse, education, dental health, medical health and other miscellaneous factors. Also, this situation breaks up families, routines, regular education and interrupts the normal life of the youth.
Many states have created juvenile justice projects to help their legislature reform the justice system. This includes improving conditions in detention centers, continuing to provide education to detained youths, counseling youths and parents and shifting the focus of juvenile justice from punishment to rehabilitation.
Louisiana's Project
Louisiana's juvenile justice project is focused on giving the state's youth the opportunity to thrive and become an important member of the community. The project achieves its mission by putting education first. The project, through Schools First, has improved school districts' discipline policies, reducing the incidents of suspension and expulsion and creating in-school suspension programs that allow students requiring discipline to still complete daily class work during the period of suspension, instead of being forced to stay home. The juvenile justice project is also believes that detaining youth offenders in prison damages the youth, and instead is attempting to find alternatives to incarceration. The project's mission is to find community-based programs that provide treatment and rehabilitation for youth offenders.
Minnesota's Project
Minnesota's PACER Center is an advocate for children with disabilities and has created a juvenile justice project that focuses on children with disabilities. Many children in detention facilities have a disability or mental health issue. PACER's juvenile justice center is committed to protecting the rights and needs of those children by educating police officers and courts about disabilities and mental health issues. Education is also an important part of the project, and PACER works to make sure that even children in correctional facilities are still provided with an education.
California's Los Angeles Project
This juvenile justice project was by the Learning Rights Law Center and UCLA. The program was created because Los Angeles County has the highest rate of youth incarceration and the county is now committed to creating community-based alternatives to incarceration. The project is seeking alternatives to the punishment aspect of incarceration and focuses on rehabilitating youth offenders and prevention by counseling at-risk youths.
New York's Project
The Correctional Association started New York's juvenile justice project in 1997. Two of the newest missions for the project are ending the use of excessive force on youths in detention facilities and ending violence perpetrated against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth in those facilities. Like other juvenile justice projects, the Correctional Association is also focused on finding alternatives for detention and incarceration. Punishment is often not enough to deter repeat offenders; it is rehabilitation and community programs that help youth offenders and at-risk youths become successful members of society.
The role of incarceration and rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system
barbed wire image by lukasz gonerski from Fotolia.com
The juvenile justice system maintains different priorities than exist in the adult criminal justice system. For example, a juvenile is not found guilty of a crime but rather is adjudicated an offender. Although punishment is an element of the juvenile justice system, the primary focus is on rehabilitation.
Least Restrictive Alternative
A primary consideration in sentencing following an adjudication of an offender in the juvenile justice system is what is known as the "least restrictive alternative." Least restrictive alternative means that a juvenile offender is to be committed to a sentence that provides the least restriction on her person and her access to her family.
Incarceration Considerations
Incarceration of a juvenile offender is a sentence of last result. Incarceration of a juvenile offender is to occur only for crimes that are particularly serious (premeditated killing of another person, for example). Additionally, protecting the safety of the community is a factor in incarcerating a juvenile. Finally, there needs to be a demonstrated rehabilitative need for incarceration as well.
Rehabilitation Function
The primary function of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation of the juvenile offender. Community-based rehabilitation services are to be accessed if available and if the juvenile does not pose a threat to the community. These types of services are to be utilized as opposed to those available through a juvenile detention center pursuant to the least restrictive alternative principle.
Time Frame
Unlike the adult criminal justice system, the length of a sentence in a juvenile case is not as major of a consideration in selecting community-based rehabilitation over incarceration. In the adult system, a convicted defendant with a longer sentence is more apt to face incarceration over some type of community-based corrections. In the juvenile justice system, the goal of rehabilitation and the principle of least restrictive alternative generally carry greater weight over sentence length.
Misconceptions
The most common misconception surrounding incarceration and rehabilitation issues in the juvenile justice system is that separation of children from adults is the only major difference. Although the separation of juveniles from adults is a difference between the systems, the goals, objectives and court procedures also vary significantly.
The adult justice system and the juvenile justice system may appear similar on the surface, but there are major differences between the two. The juvenile justice system is more about rehabilitation than punishment.
Due Process
Juveniles are helped in the area of due process more than adult offenders are. Children tried as juveniles cannot be sentenced to adult facilities. The purpose of juvenile facilities is to shield children from bad influences and to keep them from developing criminal tendencies.
Stricter Schedules
Juvenile facilities are much like adult jails or prisons; however, they have stricter schedules so that the juvenile is provided with codes of conduct and more structure, which helps with rehabilitation of delinquent behaviors.
Jurisdiction
Once a juvenile is in the justice system, the court can retain jurisdiction over the juvenile until he legally becomes an adult, age 21 in most states. Additionally, in some situations juvenile offenders can be transferred to an adult facility after they reach legal age.
Juveniles who get arrested generally do not get arrested as adults.
Image by Flickr.com, courtesy of Jon Feinstein
The justice system recognizes that while differences do exist between juveniles and adults, juveniles who commit crimes that are of an adult nature can be tried in either a juvenile court or an adult court system.
Offenses
Image by Flickr.com, courtesy of Porfirio
Violent criminal acts can land juveniles in adult jails.
Criminal offenses fall into three categories: felony, misdemeanor and infraction. Some offenses are unique to juveniles, e.g. curfew violations, truancy and unruly behavior. Meanwhile, juvenile offenders are categorized as either criminal offenders, juveniles remanded to superior court, informal probationers or status offenders.
Differences
The difference between conviction and sentencing in juvenile and adult justice is the treatment emphasized and support system involved, which translates into a more expensive operation when juvenile crime is involved.
Prevention/Solution
The juvenile system is concerned with treatment and rehabilitation, while the adult system focuses more on punishment. Additionally, juvenile criminals and "at risk" juveniles have the support of non-law enforcement agencies, such as community-based organizations, social service agencies and schools.
Prosecution
Moreover, the juvenile justice system will allow arrested offenders the humiliation of facing their parents, spending the night in juvenile hall, and communicating with a probation officer and/or judge. Most underage offenders who are caught and arrested will not be arrested as adults.
Policymakers
According to a Legislative Analyst's Office report on juvenile crime, there's a direct correlation between juvenile crime and a rise in juvenile populations. "To address this growth in crime, policymakers will have to pursue multiple strategies, including prevention, intervention, suppression and incarceration efforts."
The United States does not have a standardized juvenile justice system; each state follows its own discrete system with its own laws and conventions. Commonalities and differences exist between treatment of juvenile and adult offenders. There is significant overlap, however, as some juveniles remain in the juvenile justice system, while others are tried and convicted as adults in criminal court.
Different Philosophies, Some Commonalities
Different philosophies underly the juvenile and adult legal systems. The primary justifications for a separate juvenile court system are rehabilitation and treatment, with a secondary focus on community protection. Adult criminal courts are predicated on punishment and deterrence. This philosophical divide drives many of the differences between juvenile and adult treatment. Overall, juvenile justice systems are more protective of the accused so as to avoid stigmatization. Of course, juveniles have many of the same legal protections as their adult counterparts: the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to confront accusers and cross-examine witnesses and the right to appeal to a higher court.
Transfer from Juvenile to Criminal Court
Via myriad transfer mechanisms, all states allow adult criminal prosecution of juveniles under some circumstances. The National Center for Juvenile Justice reports in a 2008 analysis that direct file laws in 15 states allow prosecutors to decide whether a juvenile offender will be tried as an adult in certain categories of cases, which may have to do with age, offending history and/or the nature of the offense. Almost half the states do not specify a minimum age for at least one statute that transfers juveniles to criminal court; of the remaining states, the minimum age for transfer ranges from 10 to 15 years.
Mandated Prosecution in Criminal Court
Transfer is not the only method for getting juvenile offenders into adult criminal court. In the same analysis, the National Center for Juvenile Justice found that 29 states had statutory exclusion laws that carve out offenses for which prosecution as an adult is, in fact, mandatory. As of January 2010, two states prosecute all 16- and 17-year-old juvenile offenders as adults. As of January 2011, Campaign for Youth Justice estimates that 200,000 juveniles are treated as adults in the criminal court system each year.
Juvenile Court Summary
* Alleged offenders are referred to as "respondents."
* Respondents are subject to a hearing before a judge but not entitled to a trial before their peers--that is, other juveniles.
* A case-work approach is taken, which includes the youth's history as well as legal facts.
* Court proceedings may be private to protect confidentiality.
* Juveniles who have been found responsible are judged to be "delinquent."
* Juvenile delinquents are given a disposition.
* Public access to juvenile records is limited.
Criminal Court Summary
* Alleged offenders are referred to as "defendants."
* Defendants face a trial, whether before a judge or a jury of their peers.
* Adjudication is based almost exclusively on legal facts.
* Court proceedings are always open to the public.
blue on barb wire image by Douglas Judy from Fotolia.com
Incarceration is a last resort for juveniles.
The term juvenile justice refers to laws and procedures as they relate to criminal offenders who are not yet adults. It involves the treatment of juvenile offenders, the efforts to understand the root of their criminal behavior and ways to prevent such behavior. The juvenile justice system includes methods of preventing juveniles from entering the criminal justice system in the first place, diversion for those in the early stages of offending and protection and rehabilitation for those already in the system.
Punishments
The juvenile justice system must treat children fairly and with dignity. The juvenile system handles cases in a completely different capacity than adult cases. The law prohibits capital punishment and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for anyone younger than 18 years of age. Depriving a child of basic rights and freedoms is only a consideration as a last resort after exhausting other solutions. When determining a sentence for a juvenile offender, a judge should consider the child's age and developmental level while also keeping in mind the best interests of the child.
Restorative Justice
Unlike the adult system, which bases its system on retributive justice, the juvenile justice bases its system on restorative justice. Restorative justice focuses on the positive rather than the negative and looks to give the juvenile offender a second chance. The key element in restorative justice is restoring the relationships between the victim, offender and society. The ultimate goal of this system is to prevent a child from turning into an adult offender and, in turn, reduce recidivism.
Treatment
In general, the juvenile justice system favors rehabilitation over punishment. According to the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, about 70 percent of minors involved in the justice system meet the criteria for a diagnosable mental health disorder. Children in the juvenile justice system are typically asked to complete services offered within their communities, schools and/or institutions to help them address mental health disorders, substance abuse issues and family/peer problems. The system prioritizes education and preparation for adulthood. The hope with this approach is that the child will eventually become a productive, independent, law-abiding citizen.
The Juvenile Justice Reform Act was passed in 2003 with the intent to change the juvenile justice system within Louisiana. The mandates in the reform are carried out by the Juvenile Justice Reform Act Implementation Commission, a five-person board dedicated to the purpose of implementing the rulings in this act.
Tallulah Youth Prison Closing
The Juvenile Justice Reform Act calls for the closing of the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth in Tallulah, Louisiana, as it pertains to juveniles. This act also mandates that DPSC provide a plan for the placement of youth in Tallulah, as well as the reallocation of monies into community-based alternatives or future facilities.
Placement Review Process & Licensing Standards
The Juvenile Justice Reform Act mandates that juveniles undergo periodic reviews and that uniform standards are created for the licensing of juvenile detention centers.
Children's Cabinet
The Juvenile Justice Reform Act re-established the presence of a children's cabinet with the purpose of "reforming the delivery system of juvenile justice services to the Implementation Commission. This cabinet should create budgets of all costs for the Juvenile Justice System."
The Juvenile Corrections Act is an Idaho law. It dictates how young offenders are to be treated in the juvenile justice system. It outlines the policies and procedures for various entities involved in the juvenile justice system. It provides a step-by-step guide of the juvenile's journey through the juvenile justice system.
The Law
The Juvenile Corrections Act was created in 1995 by the Idaho government. The law established the principles for the Idaho juvenile justice system which include accountability, community protection and competency development. The law deals with juvenile offenders, parent and guardian rights and obligations, correctional facilities, the court's obligations and responsibilities, rehabilitation and community services, and policies regarding incarceration and release. The law is comprehensive and deals with all aspects of the treatment of juveniles within the state's justice system.
Jurisdiction
The Juvenile Corrections Act gives the juvenile justice system jurisdiction over children and youths. According to section 20-205, "the court shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction over any juvenile and over any adult who was a juvenile at the time of any act." The court has jurisdiction in the county in which the resident resides or the county in which the criminal act occurred, depending on the circumstances. The provisions in section 20-505 may not apply to juveniles who violate liquor, smoking or traffic laws. It does not pertain to juveniles who commit violent crimes.
Court Transfer
In certain circumstances, a juvenile may be transferred to the adult court system. Juvenile courts may waive jurisdiction for juveniles who commit violent crimes. A youth 14 years old or older may be transferred to the adult system if the act committed would be a crime if committed by an adult. A person over 18 may be adjudicated in adult court for juvenile crimes committed prior to the age of 18. A motion for transfer may be made by the juvenile court, the prosecuting attorney or by the defendant. The court considers several factors in deciding whether to waive jurisdiction. These factors include the seriousness of the crime; the nature of the crime; and the maturity, history and past criminal record of the defendant.
Incarceration
Juveniles who are found guilty may be sentenced to a detention center. The law allows a judge to sentence the juvenile to 90 days of incarceration for every unlawful act the juvenile committed that would be considered a misdemeanor if committed by an adult. The judge may pass the same sentence for habitual offenders. The juvenile may be sentenced to 180 days for crimes and acts that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult. The youth must appear before the department for a review and determination of services needed within 90 days of entering the facility.
Restitution
The Juvenile Corrections Act requires offenders to pay restitution to their victims. The Probation Department is to make "reasonable efforts" to ensure restitution. Offenders must pay the restitution with their probation, through a work program or directly to the victim. In some cases restitution may be a condition of probation.
The Federal Youth Corrections Act may offer juveniles rehabilitation options.
latticed prison window image by Stasys Eidiejus from Fotolia.com
In 1950, the federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA) was amended to initiate rehabilitation options for juvenile offenders. Before the 1950s, children seven and older received the same treatment as that of adults in the judicial system. According to Charles Doyle of The Congressional Research Service, the needs of juvenile offenders continue to receive the attention of lawmakers.
Pre-1950s
the ridges image by Jennifer Stone from Fotolia.com
Training schools offered confinement options for deliquent boys.
The creation of training schools for boys initially addressed juvenile delinquency. Training schools for boys aged 10 to 16 provided education and reform in Illinois. The training schools also provided confinement to delinquent boys aged 16 to 21. In 1908, training schools for boys spread nationally. The Federal Youth Corrections Act, which provided special attention to those criminals under the age of 18, was implemented in 1938.
1950 Amendment
In 1950, the federal YCA was amended to include rehabilitation and treatment options for juvenile delinquents. According to Charles Doyle of The Congressional Research Service, the 1950 amendment remained unchanged until the 1970s.
1974 Amendment
In 1974, Congress revised the YCA. The revised YCA included the ability to offer more procedural options to juveniles who committed severe crimes such as murder or kidnapping.
1980s Revision
In 1984, the YCA was amended to include options for treating juveniles as adults for serious crimes. The revised YCA included a list of crimes that warranted a juvenile's transfer within the court system as an adult.
State Response
After the 1980s, the state court systems for juvenile sentencing took precedence over federal courts, except for cases involving violence and drug activity.
A congressional committee recommended that the development of the Youth Correction Authority Act be continued after the original introduction to six states was not well received. This act was developed to help reduce repeat crimes committed by those 16 to 21 years old.
Creators
The originators of the Youth Correction Authority Act were members of the American Law Institute. A survey was performed to research the acceptance of the act by the American Psychiatric Association.
Time of Introduction
The bills that include most of the features of the act were introduced to seven states in 1940, 1941 and 1942. They were introduced to Kansas, Wisconsin, New York, Illinois, California, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Survey Results
The American Psychiatric Association followed the results of the survey regarding the acceptance of the bills. Only California introduced and accepted the bills in 1941. The other six states did not pass the bills after they were introduced.
Act Details
One portion of the Youth Correction Act says, "If the court desires additional information as to whether a youth offender will derive benefit from treatment under subsection (b), it may order that he be committed to the custody of the director for observation and study."
“So many kids end up in the juvenile justice system before they've been able to get help. They end up getting it (help) through the juvenile justice system, and that's wrong. A kid shouldn't have to commit a crime to get the help they need.” Lori Reynolds
Posts
