Pennsylvania
Models for Change Mentioned
The Herald-Review (IL)
‘Connecting Youth and the Community conference considers fair, effective punishment’ –
June 3, 2010
Even in an auditorium full of social service, courts and law enforcement professionals, the statistic brought a gasp…
PA Senate Hearing
‘Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "best practices" in the juvenile justice system’ –
June 8, 2010
To access videos, visit Senator Greenleaf’s homepage at:
OR
View email attachments
Pennsylvania Summary
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Expert: End zero tolerance policies’ – May 29, 2010
An education-law advocacy group said ending zero-tolerance policies in schools as recommended in the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice on Thursday would have benefits far beyond the commission’s goal of preventing a recurrence of the “kids-for-cash” scandal seen in Luzerne County…
Allentown Morning Call
‘'Zero tolerance' was the culprit’ – May 30, 2010
Think back to your school days. Did you ever engage in misconduct as serious as taking nail clippers to school or flicking a spitball at somebody else during class?...
The Patriot-News (Harrisburg)
‘Juvenile justice: Blueprint helps provide checks and balances’ – May 30, 2010
There is no doubt how devastating the “cash for kids” scandal has been for the families involved and for the reputation of our state’s entire juvenile justice system…
The Standard Speaker (Hazleton)
‘Chief defender plans changes’ – May 30, 2010
Luzerne County Chief Public Defender Al Flora Jr. is reallocating resources in the office to improve legal representation of juveniles, but he isn't sure what the long-term cost will be and whether the changes can continue…
The Philadelphia Inquirer
‘Editorial: Justice for juveniles’ – May 31, 2010
Now that a state panel has reported its findings from investigating Luzerne County's "kids for cash" scandal, Gov. Rendell and court officials should act swiftly to implement needed reforms…
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Commentary: There can be no delay in restoring juvenile justice Commentary Sen. Lisa Baker’ –
June 1, 2010
PENNSYLVANIANS owe sincere thanks to Judge John Cleland and the members of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice for providing dedicated and diligent service, for conducting a thorough and no-holds-barred inquiry, and for assembling such an extensive and well-reasoned series of recommendations for reform…
The Philadelphia Daily News
‘Opinion: Young criminals, appropriate punishment’ – June 1, 2010
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT last month ruled 5 to 4 that juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes may not be sentenced to life without parole…
Allentown Morning Call
‘Kids need independent watchdog’ – June 2, 2010
The old Pennsylvania Crime Commission had no prosecutorial power. What made it dangerous to corrupt politicians and their friends in organized crime was its independence…
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
‘Editorial - Kids for cash: Statewide reform is the only way to right this wrong’ – June 02, 2010
The report issued Thursday by the commission that investigated Luzerne County's juvenile justice system said its corrupt practices haven't spread statewide. That's good news…
Reading Eagle
‘Holly Herman: To prevent corruption, juvenile courts should be open’ – June 3, 2010
If there is nothing to hide, why not let the public into juvenile court?...
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Attorney: Agency deprives rights’ – June 3, 2010
A local attorney said he plans to file a federal lawsuit today on behalf of approximately 25 parents who allege Luzerne County Children and Youth violated their constitutional rights in placing their children in foster care…
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
‘PA Child Care wants to block destruction of juvenile records’ – June 5, 2010
An attorney for PA Child Care presented three witnesses and sifted through nearly 600 pages of documents Friday in an effort to get a federal judge to block the destruction of juvenile records as ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court…
Citizens’ Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Lawyers: Orders on kids-for-cash records conflict each other’ – June 5, 2010
Attorneys in civil-rights suits filed by hundreds of juveniles jailed in the kids-for-cash scandal tangled Friday over the enforcement of two seemingly contradictory orders issued by a federal judge and the state Supreme Court…
Associated Press (AP) – Harrisburg Bureau
‘'Sexting' Leads To Child Porn Charges For Teens’ – June 5, 2010
Posted on:
At Susquenita High School, 15 miles outside of Harrisburg, Pa., eight students, ranging in age from 13 to 17, have learned a tough lesson about "sexting."…
Scranton Times Tribune
‘Editorial: Fix state JCB’ – June 6, 2010
One of the ways in which the juvenile court scandal in Luzerne County spread far beyond the county border was its exposure of flaws in the statewide system for disciplining judges - a key element in the administration of justice…
Citizens’ Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Justice meltdown seen at all levels’ – June 7, 2010
One of the ways in which the juvenile court scandal in Luzerne County spread far beyond the county border was its exposure of flaws in the statewide system for disciplining judges - a key element in the administration of justice…
Citizens’ Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Panel chairman: Juveniles must retain waiver rights, with safeguards’ – June 9, 2010
Juvenile defendants should be able to waive legal representation, but safeguards are needed so it doesn't become commonplace like it did in Luzerne County under two former judges, the chairman of an investigating commission told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday…
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Area lawmakers follow up juvie commission report’ – June 10, 2010
Two area legislators want to make sure the work of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice has lasting effects on the juvenile justice system…
Scranton Times Tribune
‘Eachus introduces juvenile Justice reform bills’ – June 10, 2010
Two initial bills to put the recommendations of the state commission investigating the Luzerne County courthouse scandal into effect were introduced Wednesday by House Majority Leader Todd Eachus…
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Records to remain for defendants in “kids for cash” suits, judge rules.’ – June 10, 2010
A federal judge has granted a motion filed by some of the defendants in the “kids for cash” lawsuits that sought to prevent the destruction of records they say are crucial to the defense of the cases…
Citizens’ Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
‘Judge's ruling preserves detention centers' records’ – June 10, 2010
A federal judge issued an injunction Wednesday allowing the operators of two for-profit juvenile detention centers at the heart of the kids-for-cash scandal to preserve records they claim are subject to destruction under a state Supreme Court order…
Scranton Times Tribune
‘Opinion: Don't let kids waive counsel’ – June 10, 2010
One of the most appalling aspects of the Luzerne County juvenile justice scandal was that so many professionals within the legal system facilitated it…
Erie Times-News
‘Your view: Bereaved Erie mom urges new approach to juvenile justice’ – June 11, 2010
Changing juvenile laws will help our children become a mold for success…
National Summary
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
‘Opinion: County policy on young juveniles sets model for the nation’ – May 29, 2010
Although there may be competing theories about the effectiveness of our juvenile justice system, one point on which we should all agree is that incarcerating kids 12 and younger in jail-like facilities is wrong, period…
The Battle Creek Enquirer (MI)
‘Your Opinions: Not all juveniles treated the same’ – June 1, 2010
Your editorial discussing the recent Supreme Court opinion barring juvenile life without parole for non-homicide cases ("Holding Out Hope," May 20) notes that Missouri is the gold standard in responding to juvenile delinquency…
The New York Times - Online
‘Paterson Proposes Juvenile Justice Overhaul’ – June 2, 2010
Gov. David A. Paterson introduced legislation on Wednesday to begin overhauling New York’s troubled juvenile prison system, in what aides described at a first step toward broader changes long sought by critics of the system…
Associated Press (AP) – Baltimore Bureau (MD)
‘Third of kids don't finish troubled-youth program’ – June 4, 2010
Posted on:
More than a third of kids failed to complete a treatment program at a center for troubled youth that reopened last year after a resident died in 2007, Maryland's juvenile justice watchdog group said this week…
The Washington Post – Online
‘'Juvenile justice reform' -- or a clear-and-present threat?’ – June 4, 2010
Manuel D. Sanchez, 29, of Capitol Heights was with a crew of people hired a week ago to clean up the area in the rear of an apartment house in the 4600 block of Hillside Road in Southeast Washington. Sanchez didn't make it home. Just after 2:00 p.m. last Friday he was shot to death.
Sad how things happen…
WRTV-TV (IN)
‘Top Prison Official Defends Juvenile Justice System’ – June 4, 2010
The head of the Indiana Department of Correction told 6News that real change is being made within the state's juvenile prisons, which have been plagued with allegations of sexual abuse and filthy conditions…
CBS News
‘"Sexting" Leads to Child Porn Charges for Teens’ – June 5, 2010
At Susquenita High School, 15 miles outside of Harrisburg, Pa., eight students, ranging in age from 13 to 17, have learned a tough lesson about "sexting."…
The Post-Standard - Online (NY)
‘Overdue Justice: Gov. Paterson's bill a strong start in fixing youth prison system’ – June 6, 2010
Gov. David Paterson proposed bold legislation Wednesday that would begin to overhaul how New York treats children who break the law…
Associated Press (AP) – Wales Bureau (WI)
‘States closing youth prisons as arrests plunge’ – June 7, 2010
After struggling for years to treat young criminals in razor wire-ringed institutions, states across the country are quietly shuttering dozens of reformatories amid plunging juvenile arrests, softer treatment policies and bleak budgets…
Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown Public Policy Institute
‘Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems’ – June 7, 2010
Youths who go through both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems often leave school without the skills necessary for success in the 21st century, according to this report from the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform…
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
‘Opinion: The cost of locking up California's juveniles’ – June 8, 2010
California essentially gave up on Maria Santana's son when he was 15 years old and was locked up in the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) youth prisons. Initially told he would be released in four years, Maria's son has been languishing for nearly 10 years….
WAFB-TV (LA)
‘Legislators shoot down bill to clarify role of juvenile court’ – June 8, 2010
A bill backed by the East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney's Office was shot down in a Senate committee on Tuesday. The measure was supposed to clarify the role of juvenile court in the most extreme criminal cases…
The Advocate (LA)
‘Sexting’ legislation clears Senate committee – June 9, 2010
A state Senate committee advanced legislation Tuesday that would make “sexting” punishable by at least 10 days in jail…
The San Bernardino Sun (CA)
‘Opinion: Questioning how well juvenile justice system works’ – June 9, 2010
When a 16-year-old Apple Valley boy escaped from the Indio Juvenile Hall on May 9 and was shot by police the next day, it made me wonder how well the current juvenile justice system works…
The New York Times
‘Editorial: Real Justice for Juveniles’ – June 11, 2010
Gov. David Paterson of New York has sent the Legislature a juvenile justice bill that would achieve two urgently important goals. It would improve the quality of the leadership and care in the state’s often dangerous and inhumane juvenile facilities. And it would ensure that only children who need to be institutionalized — because they present a risk to the public — end up in the facilities…
Top Stories – Models for Change Mentioned
Connecting Youth and the Community conference considers fair, effective punishment
The Herald-Review (IL)
By VALERIE WELLS
June 3, 2010
DECATUR - Even in an auditorium full of social service, courts and law enforcement professionals, the statistic brought a gasp.
Some 30 percent of juvenile arrests in Chicago happen at schools, and some of those schools have their own booking stations.
"I'm not kidding. It's true," said Miguel Millett, state coordinator for Disproportionate Minority Contact, an effort by the juvenile justice system to reduce the disproportionate contact between young people of color and the system.
The Connecting Youth and the Community conference was held Wednesday at Richland Community College, a gathering of the people and organizations who must work together to achieve the goal. Statewide, African-American boys are suspended and expelled from school four times more often than in any other state, said Randall Strickland, who works with Models for Change in the Chicago area. Many times, school personnel call police instead of handling student discipline issues within the school, he said.
"We have abdicated school discipline to police," Strickland said. "We have ways to do a better job than that."
Part of the contact's mission is to find those other ways, to provide children and their families with intervention early and to deal with young offenders fairly, holding them accountable without going overboard.
"We're treating kids as criminals instead of kids who made a mistake, who did dumb things," he said. "(Doing dumb things) is in their job description. As a society, we have to be in the business of allowing kids to make mistakes and learn from their mistakes."
In white communities, he said, that's usually how it happens. The goal is to see that the same thing happens in minority communities, too.
Macon County has begun this with the Macon County Juvenile Justice Initiative, said Christine Pinckard, with partnerships forged among a variety of agencies, from the public schools to the Greater Decatur Chamber of Commerce, Macon County Board, sheriff's office and chief judge of the judicial circuit.
One way the initiative is taking action is finding holes in the services available to a youth after he or she is released from incarceration.
To that end, the partners in the initiative are doing a feasibility study on reviving the Juvenile Resource Center, a service that was available in the past.
"It's not a detention center, that's the smallest part of it," she said. "It's bringing together alternative education, mental health, pulling them all together."
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "best practices" in the juvenile justice system
June 8, 2010
To access videos, visit Senator Greenleaf’s homepage at:
OR
View email attachments
Excerpt from Hearing:
Berks County Senior Judge Arthur Grim: In November of 2005, the MacArthur Foundation indicated that Pennsylvania was the bellwether state of juvenile justice in the United States and that they wanted to form a partnership with Pennsylvania in order to take it a step further in hopes that the way we do business in Pennsylvania could be replicated throughout the nation…
The next hearing relating to the “best practices" in juvenile justice will be held on Tuesday, June 15th at 10:30 am.
Top Stories - Pennsylvania
Expert: End zero tolerance policies
Involving police quickly with student misbehavior has been a common policy since the Columbine shootings.
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
By Mark Guydish
May 29, 2010
An education-law advocacy group said ending zero-tolerance policies in schools as recommended in the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice on Thursday would have benefits far beyond the commission’s goal of preventing a recurrence of the “kids-for-cash” scandal seen in Luzerne County.
“Statistics show that any contact students have with police increases the likelihood of future contacts,” Education Law Center staff attorney David Lapp said. “People have termed it the ‘prison pipeline.’”
Zero tolerance became popular after the 1999 Columbine High School shootings in Colorado, and former county Juvenile Court judge Mark Ciavarella openly advocated zero tolerance for many students who were brought to his bench. Ciavarella and former county judge Michael Conahan are accused of accepting millions of dollars for actions that benefited a private juvenile detention facility in Pittston Township.
The Interbranch Commission report argues that “schools in Luzerne County too quickly turned to the juvenile justice system as a vehicle to address school climate and learning conditions. As a result, too many youth unnecessarily entered the juvenile justice system.”
It is a claim repeatedly disputed by local school administrators ever since witnesses started making it last year during commission hearings held in Wilkes-Barre Township.
But Lapp pointed to statistics his organization compiled from state data.
“In the last decade the number of school-based arrests in Pennsylvania tripled from 4,000 to 12,000,” he said. It came down a little over the last two years but still is significantly higher than a decade ago.
“I don’t think there is a deliberate intent by anybody at the school level to harm students,” Lapp added. “I think it’s more that this was an easy, quick fix. As the Interbranch Commission said, they were able to get the troublemakers out of their hair, and we’re learning that’s just not an appropriate role for schools.”
Lapp contends the Interbranch Commission’s report bolsters his organization’s argument that schools must move away from what has become overuse of punitive discipline.
There are methods that have been shown to work much better, shifting emphasis from “punitive retribution to changing student attitudes and future actions.”
Several Pennsylvania high schools have had “remarkable success with restorative practices,” Lapp said. There are various models, but they often involve mediation, with an opportunity for the victim “to communicate to the offender why something was painful or hurtful, and an opportunity for the offender to figure out future ways to handle problems differently.”
The Education Law Center is also using the Interbranch Commission report in a fight to alter state Senate Bill 56, which is designed to make the school safety reports more uniform.
The state has compiled the safety data annually for more than a decade, but the weakness has always been that the information is self-reported by the schools. Different administrators may report the same type of incident under different categories – one person’s harassment may be another person’s assault. The state tightened the reporting procedures in 2005, but problems continued.
Lapp said SB 56 attempts to fix the problem by involving police more. “When it first came out it in 2009, it basically required schools to call them for anything that could remotely be considered a crime,” he said.
The bill has been “favorably amended,” but there is still a high risk administrators will simply opt to call police whenever they are unsure an incident matches the requirements, Lapp said. “A principal may not know the difference between aggravated assault and simple assault.
“We think it’s important that the data be accurately collected, but police don’t seem to be a necessary part of that, especially for incidents not of a violent or overly serious nature,” Lapp said.
'Zero tolerance' was the culprit
Allentown Morning Call
By Paul Carpenter
May 30, 2010
Think back to your school days.
Did you ever engage in misconduct as serious as taking nail clippers to school or flicking a spitball at somebody else during class?
Maybe not. You were, no doubt, a goody two-shoes who never annoyed any school authority. But what about your children? Might any of them ever have a lapse and engage in felonious flicking of spitballs?
If so, their lives could be ruined with the bang of a gavel that sends them to prison for years -- with no lawyer, no due process, no trial by a jury, no right to confront witnesses, no nothing. (And make no mistake, juvenile detention is prison.)
Sound like one of George Orwell's bad dreams? No, it's something from the nightmarish way Pennsylvania operates its schools and its juvenile justice systems.
In Friday's paper, a headline said, ''Scathing report on judicial corruption.'' It was about a report by the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, formed because of a scandal in Luzerne County.
Two judges there are charged with taking payoffs to put hundreds of children in commercial juvenile detention facilities. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which oversees all courts in the state, knew about the problem but refused to take action until forced to do so last year when federal authorities got involved. Coincidentally, the owner of the commercial jail is the son of a former chief justice.
According to Friday's story, the ICJJ report said corruption in Luzerne County's court system ''has been deeply ingrained for many years.'' It said the ICJJ ''also revealed failures in state oversight of the court system,'' specifically referring to the state's Judicial Conduct Board, a puppet of the Supreme Court and the governor.
I looked at the report and it is indeed scathing, and it includes one finding not mentioned in the story. The ICJJ noted that Luzerne County Juvenile Court Judge Mark Ciavarella was ''a zero tolerance judge who took a hard line on juvenile crime, particularly when crime occurred in schools.''
(Ciavarella is now awaiting trial on federal charges. A fellow Luzerne County judge has agreed to plead guilty.)
The ''zero tolerance'' theme is a major component of another even more scathing report by the Juvenile Law Center, the Philadelphia-based organization that gave the Supreme Court evidence about wrongdoing in Luzerne County in the first place (to no immediate avail).
Both reports are comprehensive and complex. For today, I'll discuss just one chapter in the JLC report, which says ''zero tolerance'' policies for weapons and drugs in school appeal to the public, and ''in large part, the widespread acceptance of zero tolerance policies in Luzerne County allowed Ciavarella to easily traffic children from their homes and schools to detention centers.''
You may have seen other stories about students who got in trouble under ''zero tolerance'' rules for having such things as nail clippers, butter knives or aspirin. Meaningful discipline, however, is difficult in schools, so they get rid of students they don't like by shunting them somewhere else.
Juvenile courts, the JLC says, ''allow schools to use the justice system as the school disciplinarian.'' It quotes Luzerne District Attorney Jacqueline Carroll as saying that ''if you threw a spitball, they got the police, and you ended up in juvenile court and got sent away.''
The JLC report said, ''In Luzerne County, school referrals made under zero tolerance policies were an integral element of the overall [payoff] scheme as they ensured a constant stream of children to be placed into detention.''
I have discussed similar referrals at length. I focused on the way county juvenile caseworkers profit by making referrals to their own private therapy mills, but the lack of due process is the same.
Also, in March, I discussed laws that restrict school discipline. If schools want to take a thug out of class, they have to provide a very expensive alternate education. ''Let teachers show hoodlums and lazy bums the door,'' I urged.
So how is the school-court symbiosis in Luzerne County different from that of any other county? That's the problem. It isn't, except that the Luzerne judges drew attention to themselves by going overboard. (They are accused of pocketing $2.8 million in bribes by jailing ridiculous percentages of juvie defendants.)
And who has the ultimate duty to look out for the rights of juveniles? Why, it's the state Supreme Court, which is the same as saying nobody at all.
Do you think such a thing can happen to your kids even if they are innocent or pull picayune pranks? You're damned right it can, unless changes are made.
Think about that the next time you hear a judicial candidate brag about being tough -- while saying nothing about protecting anybody's rights.
Juvenile justice: Blueprint helps provide checks and balances
The Patriot-News (Harrisburg)
May 30, 2010
There is no doubt how devastating the “cash for kids” scandal has been for the families involved and for the reputation of our state’s entire juvenile justice system.
A report released from the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice on Thursday should start the healing in that case and provide the blueprint for change that should assure that it never happens again in Pennsylvania.
John Cleland, chairman of the 11-member commission that looked into the Luzerne County cases, made scathing remarks about what was allowed to go on in the county and his words are a lesson for us all.
He slams former judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan for their part in the “cash for kids,” as they sent children and teens to certain juvenile facilities in exchange for kickbacks.
But he added that prosecutors stood by without trying to change what was happening and the community on some level knew something was not right.
The commission should be applauded for its tough words, hard work and thorough investigation of the misconduct.
The report also provides an important list of 43 recommendations that touches all aspects of the juvenile justice system. Lawmakers already are rightfully promising to put some of them into legislation.
The most important recommendations would mean that every juvenile who goes before the court has access to defense counsel, something many of the teens in Luzerne County did not.
It also calls for mandatory ethics training for all county and appellate judges, which is a must.
The report rightfully wants to see improvements to the oversight of judges and the accountability of the state Judicial Conduct Board, which has been criticized for not doing more when it was notified of problems in Luzerne County.
However, we are disappointed that the group did not recommend more openness of juvenile court proceedings. After everything that happened in Luzerne County, it seems imperative to allow public access to these hearings.
We also believe the commission should have recommended an office of ombudsman so that families with issues related to the juvenile justice system would have a set place to go for help.
While we hope lawmakers look at these two areas as they weigh what should be changed with the juvenile justice system, we do not want to take away from the enormous amount of time and thoughtfulness that went into the 66-page commission report.
All the members of the board should be commended for their dedication, and their recommendations will make the legal system we have in place for our children and teens much sounder in Luzerne County and throughout the state.
Chief defender plans changes
The Standard Speaker (Hazleton)
By Michael P. Buffer
May 30, 2010
Luzerne County Chief Public Defender Al Flora Jr. is reallocating resources in the office to improve legal representation of juveniles, but he isn't sure what the long-term cost will be and whether the changes can continue.
Flora, who has been in charge of the office since longtime chief Basil Russin resigned March 17, said he is preparing a report for county commissioners on the office. The report should be done in a few weeks.
"I am compiling for the commissioners a complete breakdown of our caseload and workload," Flora said. "It will give them a good understanding of what our needs are. That has never been done before. We are still trying to pull data on the operation of the whole office, so they'll have it in front of them, and they can make appropriate decisions on how to deal with this office."
County Commissioner Chairwoman Maryanne Petrilla said she is pleased Flora is preparing a report on the office and is keeping commissioners informed of office issues.
"Awesome," she said. "I think it is important that we do that going forward."
A state panel charged with investigating the kids-for-cash scandal issued a report Thursday and concluded that former judge Mark A. Ciavarella, who presided over juvenile court for 12 years, was able to incarcerate juveniles at twice the state average, many on minor charges, in part because public defenders didn't object and paid little attention to juvenile court. Ciavarella and former judge Michael T. Conahan are accused of accepting $2.8 million in kickbacks for placing juveniles in two for-profit detention centers.
Flora didn't want to respond to the report's findings on the office when Russin was in charge. The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice concluded that Russin, who resigned earlier this year in a pay dispute with the county commissioners, failed to properly supervise the assistant public defenders who appeared before Ciavarella.
One assistant expressed concerns to Russin that more than one-half of the juveniles appearing before Ciavarella had no legal representation. "I said, we're not going to seek clients. And we don't have the time or the manpower to intervene," Russin told the commission last November.
Flora, who is representing Ciavarella as a private defense attorney and was the first assistant public defender under Russin, said he didn't supervise assistant public defenders or handle juvenile cases when Russin was in charge.
"My primary responsibility was for homicides and capital offenses," Flora said.
Flora said the office is now willing to represent all juveniles and has ended a policy under Russin that used the income of a juvenile's parents to determine eligibility. The commission is recommending that all juveniles in the state be "deemed indigent for the purposes of appointment of counsel."
"The process we're using of taking all kids and not considering the income of parents, it could drastically increase the caseload," Flora said. "It runs contrary to the way society works. Kids applying to college for grants, the parents' income is considered. What we are doing is something very different. Whether it continues in the long run we'll see."
A single adult defendant can get a public defender with an annual income of less than $10,830, Flora said. The threshold for a defendant in a two-person family is $14,570.
The public defender's office has an annual budget of $2 million and provides representation in about 5,000 cases a year.
"We represent 85 (percent) to 95 percent of the criminal caseload," Flora said.
The staff includes a chief, a first assistant, 21 assistant public defenders, a chief investigator, two investigators and six support staffers. In previous years, one assistant public defender handled juvenile cases, while also representing adults for the office.
Flora said one assistant public defender, Cheryl Sobeski-Reedy, now works exclusively on juvenile cases.
"We also freed up an investigator to assist her," Flora said. "And she follows the case all the way through."
Reedy begins working on a juvenile case as soon as a juvenile is charged and detained, Flora said. Previously, a juvenile defender started working on a case at the adjudication stage.
"We are taking a very proactive approach," he added.
This year, the office could end up with 400 juvenile cases, Flora said.
"In 2007, there were 245 juvenile applications," he said. "That's a small number in scheme of things, and of that, I don't know how many were turned down."
Flora added that the juvenile court caseload is down because school districts and police are bringing fewer cases to juvenile court. The annual caseload for juvenile court used to be more than 800, he said.
The public defender's office represented 10 percent to 20 percent of the cases in which juveniles had attorneys from 2003 to 2008, the commission report said
Editorial: Justice for juveniles
The Philadelphia Inquirer
May 31, 2010
Now that a state panel has reported its findings from investigating Luzerne County's "kids for cash" scandal, Gov. Rendell and court officials should act swiftly to implement needed reforms.
The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was created last August to look into charges that two juvenile-court judges took millions of dollars in kickbacks to place young offenders in for-profit detention centers.
Federal authorities charged Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. with racketeering.
Conahan has agreed to plead guilty, while Ciavarella awaits trial. The scandal led the state Supreme Court to toss out thousands of juvenile convictions.
The commission cited a lack of oversight in the state court system. It said corruption in Luzerne County had existed for years, and that prosecutors, public defenders, and probation officials shared responsibility for allowing the situation to go on for so long.
Among other things, the panel said the Judicial Conduct Board must be more diligent in investigating and prosecuting misconduct by judges, and that efforts must increase to ensure juveniles have legal representation.
The report gives Rendell and Chief Justice Ronald Castille the base they need to launch reform.
Commentary: There can be no delay in restoring juvenile justice Commentary Sen. Lisa Baker
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
By Sen. Lisa Baker
June 1, 2010
Sen. Lisa Baker, a Lehman Township resident, is a Republican state senator serving the 20th District. For information, visit .
PENNSYLVANIANS owe sincere thanks to Judge John Cleland and the members of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice for providing dedicated and diligent service, for conducting a thorough and no-holds-barred inquiry, and for assembling such an extensive and well-reasoned series of recommendations for reform.
Thanks are also due to those people who came forward with candid accounts of what went wrong, and to the individuals and groups who submitted reform recommendations to the commission.
The Interbranch Commission has shown the laudable result that occurs when publicly spirited individuals take seriously the charge of righting incredible wrongs. They handled a difficult assignment, unlike anything in our state’s experience, with intelligence, integrity and determination.
Even though the juvenile justice system across Pennsylvania is outstanding in many respects, the complete collapse in Luzerne County makes it imperative to add safeguards. The recommendations address issues we had immediately identified, and many others that surfaced during the course of the investigation.
Corruption, indifference and failure touched every aspect of the local juvenile justice system, and reached beyond into the schools and the community. The recommendations necessarily include upgrading standards in every part of the process.
This report is a clear call to action. None of this can be treated casually, in the sense of “it might be nice to do something someday if we have time or find money or the spirit still moves us.”
All three branches of state government are put on notice that substantial, specific steps must be taken to remedy injustice, restore public confidence and prevent a future perversion of justice.
Ultimate responsibility for the juvenile justice system rests with the state Supreme Court under our unified judicial system. Several of the key recommendations will require action by the Court, and it is hoped it will act directly and decisively.
Where the recommendations require legislative action, I will introduce the bills needed to spur debate and action. There are other senators with long-established interest and involvement in judicial issues, and their participation and leadership will be helpful as well.
The responsibility for providing fair and effective justice is delineated in the state constitution. There is no asterisk indicating these obligations are suspended during times of substantial budget deficit. A large deficit in quality justice is every bit as consequential and harmful as a large deficit in state revenue.
For the money needed for training, oversight, advocacy and compensation, we will look to federal sources, foundations, fee increases and funds established for related purposes.
The commission’s proceedings were open and accessible to encourage public participation and invite public input. The report has been crafted to help the public understand the problems, and to enable citizens to join in the effort to compel action by the three branches of state government.
Opinion: Young criminals, appropriate punishment
The Philadelphia Daily News
June 1, 2010
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT last month ruled 5 to 4 that juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes may not be sentenced to life without parole.
In the case, Graham v. Florida, the court followed essentially the same reasoning it used when it declared in 2005 that juveniles may not be executed: Scientific evidence is conclusive that young people have "limited moral capability" for their crimes - and their punishment should reflect that fact.
Adolescents' "capacity for change" means that, after serving substantial time in prison, they could very well be able to lead productive lives. Or maybe not. But they should be given a meaningful chance to make that case, the court ruled.
The decision will have an immediate effect on 129 prisoners around the nation - most of them in Florida - who are serving life without parole for crimes in which no one died. But the court's reasoning leads directly to the conclusion that no juvenile should receive a life-without-parole sentence, even for murder. Proposed legislation on the national and state level would require that juvenile lifers get a chance to show that they have been rehabilitated.
Across the nation, there are more than 2,500 lifers who committed their crimes as juveniles. There are 444 juvenile lifers in Pennsylvania, all convicted of homicide - the most in the nation.
Last September, state Rep. Kenyatta Johnson, D-Phila., introduced legislation (H.B. 1999) that would require that prisoners serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were juveniles be given at least one parole hearing during their first 15 years in jail, and at least one every three years after that. Johnson's bill is similar to one being considered in the U.S. House of Representatives. We support it.
Even though he didn't mean to, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, provided an argument that supports this view - but not before presenting an "originalist" view of the Constitution that is nothing short of breathtaking. Thomas pointed out that, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, children as young as 7 could be executed - as if nothing has changed since then.
It's impossible to believe that the Founders, if they had access to the current scientific evidence on a range of subjects, would fail to take it into account when writing the nation's laws. And that evidence says: The parts of brain that govern foresight, self-control, susceptibility to peer pressure and the ability to consider in advance the consequences of one's actions are not as fully developed among adolescents. Which also means that they have a capacity to change that is greater than that of adults.
Thomas did observe that, given the court's rationale, there is no substantial difference between the culpability of a juvenile who rapes a child but doesn't kill her and another adolescent who pulls the trigger and kills someone. Both are unspeakable crimes, but if a juvenile is deemed "mentally immature" for one, he is "mentally immature" for the other.
Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to the Court's 2005 decision in the most recent one: "From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult," he wrote. That should go for all juvenile crimes.
No one is suggesting that an adolescent who takes a life should not be punished - only that it is "cruel and unusual punishment" to deprive him of any chance for release.
Prison doors should bang shut on juvenile killers - and stay shut for a good long time. But society shouldn't throw away the key.
Kids need independent watchdog
Allentown Morning Call
By Paul Carpenter
June 2, 2010
The old Pennsylvania Crime Commission had no prosecutorial power. What made it dangerous to corrupt politicians and their friends in organized crime was its independence.
It simply published reports that drove the crooks crazy, especially in corruption-riddled Harrisburg, where some elements of the power structure preferred to slither under their rocks without exposure.
One such commission report said that then-state Attorney General Ernie Preate had taken money from illegal gambling figures in return for letting them escape prosecution. That revelation did not do much to advance Preate's plan to run for governor, so he mobilized his friends in the General Assembly to legislate the crime commission out of existence in 1994.
Preate and many other politicians eventually went to prison on corruption charges. (The charges were federal, of course. People like Preate are immune from accountability in the state system.) Their triumph over the commission, however, was complete. Since 1994, power figures have remained comfortable under their rocks.
Last week, a report by the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice revealed how corrupt the court system can get, focusing on the ''kids for cash'' scandal in Luzerne County, where two judges are charged (federal, of course) with taking payoffs to place hundreds of children in commercial juvenile detention centers.
All Pennsylvania courts are controlled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which looked the other way when the problems in Luzerne County were called to its attention by the Juvenile Law Center, based in Philadelphia. The high court refused to act until forced to do so by the federal investigation.
On Sunday, I discussed the ICJJ report and another report by the JLC, noting how they found that public support of ''get-tough'' judges and ''zero tolerance'' disciplinary policies in public schools played into the hands of corrupt officials. When authorities can jail people, including children, without due process and other constitutional protections, it leads to mischief.
Essential to the Luzerne County payoff scheme, said the JLC report, was the ability of schools to get rid of disciplinary problems by passing the buck to the court system through ''referrals.''
My main point Sunday was that the problem is not unique to Luzerne County. The same corrupt system, nurtured by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, exists throughout the state. The JLC report made several recommendations on how to prevent situations like the one in Luzerne County, such as establishing standards ''to limit school-based referrals.''
Another JLC recommendation is to ''ensure accountability through an ombudsman to monitor the court system and provide for adequate data collection and reporting.'' The juvenile ombudsman, the JLC said, should be established by ''the judicial or executive branch Â… to monitor and investigate juvenile court practices.''
A few days before I got my dander up over those reports, I heard from Cathleen Palm of Bernville, Berks County, who is executive director of the statewide Protect Our Children Committee. Her organization has been working to get a state ombudsman created.
I asked her who would pay the ombudsman's salary. I have seen what happens when others who pretend to represent children, such as ''guardian ad litem'' lawyers, know their paychecks depend on the good graces of county agencies or judges. They represent the interests of the agencies, not children.
Palm initially said the ombudsman should be appointed by the governor, which I felt would be just as bad as letting the office be controlled by the judicial branch, as suggested by the JLC.
The only way an ombudsman will be effective is if it's as independent as the old Pennsylvania Crime Commission. The office will have to be created by legislation, but the worst thing would be to let the Supreme Court or other political bodies get their grubby hands on it.
Children, especially if they are innocent, as were many in Luzerne County, need a watchdog who does not report to the very judges who created and condoned such outrages in the first place.
I checked with Palm again on Tuesday, and she agreed about the need for a juvenile ombudsman ''who is really independent of the county and the state.''
I told her about the old Pennsylvania Crime Commission and how it accomplished more with public reports than all the state and federal prosecutors could do with their official powers.
''I think you're right,'' she said. ''Transparency is so, so important. You can't get enough of it in government.''
If state legislators care about your children, they will establish an independent ombudsman for them. If not, they will remain under their rocks.
Editorial - Kids for cash: Statewide reform is the only way to right this wrong
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
June 02, 2010
The report issued Thursday by the commission that investigated Luzerne County's juvenile justice system said its corrupt practices haven't spread statewide. That's good news.
The bad news is that the corruption investigation in Luzerne County has touched every aspect of its juvenile justice system -- from the judges who are accused of pocketing $2.8 million in bribes to the probation officers, defense attorneys, prosecutors and disciplinary boards who abdicated their responsibilities to thousands of children and their families.
Justice appears to have taken a back seat in the juvenile incarceration system created by former Judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark Ciavarella Jr. The former judges have been accused of conspiring with two juvenile detention centers to fill hundreds of beds at the two facilities over many years.
Because no one raised an eyebrow about how cases were handled in Luzerne compared to other places, children were separated from their families and assigned to detention centers regardless of the merits of their cases.
Many children faced the judges without legal representation. The conduct of the judges was clearly draconian. Last year, the state Supreme Court ordered 4,000 cases vacated after reports of corruption came to light.
According to the report issued by the 11-member Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, the "kids for cash" scandal is as much about official negligence and incompetence as it is about corruption. That's hardly a consolation to those directly affected by unjust incarceration.
The report also recommends statewide reforms even though Luzerne County is an isolated case. Among the changes suggested would be the requirement that all juveniles have access to defense counsel when appearing before a judge.
Oversight of judges and the Judicial Conduct Board also should be stepped up, along with ethics training for county and appellate judges. These are all recommendations the state's judicial justice system should embrace.
"Kids for cash" is one of the most shocking scandals in the history of the commonwealth. It will be a stain on Pennsylvania's justice system for years. Enacting statewide reforms is the only way to ensure that it remains a sad and isolated chapter in our history.
Holly Herman: To prevent corruption, juvenile courts should be open
Reading Eagle
June 3, 2010
If there is nothing to hide, why not let the public into juvenile court?
Senior Berks County Judge Arthur E. Grim believes the courts should be open to the public.
Grim is the judge who knows most about the "cash-for-kids" scandal in Luzerne County.
Grim presided over all the court hearings for juvenile victims of the $2.8 million scandal.
"First and foremost, system accountability and openness is critical," Grim concluded in his final report to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Feb. 25.
It was disheartening last week when the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice disagreed with Grim on this point.
Gov. Ed Rendell appointed an 11-member commission in August 2009 to make recommendations to restore confidence in the juvenile court system.
Former Luzerne County Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., who presided in juvenile court, is awaiting trial on charges of diverting kids to detention facilities for kickbacks. Former President Judge Michael T. Conahan pleaded guilty last month to racketeering and conspiracy.
The commission held 11 public hearings. The final report had 43 recommendations, including ensuring juvenile offenders have lawyers and requiring judges to write reasons on the record for dispositions.
The commission did not, however, recommend opening the court.
"Those in favor of opening all proceedings to the public argue that public scrutiny will serve as a check of abuse of power," the commission wrote. "The commission believes, however, on balance any abuse can be more appropriately addressed by enhancement to appellate review and to the system of judicial discipline rather than exposing children to the possibility that the facts surrounding childhood misconduct could be perpetually maintained in news clippings and even on the Internet."
Are you kidding me?
The commission doesn't seem to understand how news reporters operate.
Just because someone tells me something or I hear something in an open courtroom doesn't mean I publish it in the newspaper.
The job of a reporter is to cover the news - not to embarrass people for no reason.
The media would not be interested in covering minor offenses committed by kids.
We are interested, however, in preventing and reporting on public corruption.
Attorney: Agency deprives rights
W-B attorney says he will file lawsuit on behalf of 25 parents against Luzerne County Children and Youth.
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER
June 3, 2010
WILKES-BARRE – A local attorney said he plans to file a federal lawsuit today on behalf of approximately 25 parents who allege Luzerne County Children and Youth violated their constitutional rights in placing their children in foster care.
James Hayward of Wilkes-Barre said the lawsuit will be a wide-ranging indictment of Children and Youth that will rival the egregiousness of the allegations contained in the “kids-for-cash” lawsuits involving former county Judge Mark Ciavarella’s placement of juveniles in detention centers.
“It’s just like the ‘kids-for-cash’ case again,” Hayward said. “Everyone knew what Ciavarella was doing and didn’t do anything about it. Well, they all know what Children and Youth is doing and they’re not doing anything about it.”
What Children and Youth is doing, Hayward said, is routinely Children and Youth violated their constitutional rights regarding court hearings that determine whether their children will remain in foster care or be returned home.
The suit revolves around dependency court, which involves children who have been removed from their homes based on allegations of abuse or neglect. It is separate from delinquency court, which involves the placement of juveniles accused of crimes.
Under state law, Children and Youth can take immediate custody of a child only if it can be shown there is an imminent threat to the child’s safety or health. A shelter care hearing must then be held to review that determination.
Hayward said he has interviewed numerous parents who say they were never given a hearing, or were given such short notice that they could not present a meaningful rebuttal to the agency’s allegations.
“I have four clients whose shelter care hearing was either scheduled while they were in the hospital, or they never had a shelter care hearing and they took the kids off them,” he said.
Hayward said that in one case, his client had just given birth via caesarian section. Children and Youth sought to place the child. A shelter care hearing was scheduled just after she gave birth, which precluded her from attending.
Hayward said he went to the hearing on her behalf and obtained a continuance. But that did not stop the agency from taking the child anyway.
“They went that night or the night after and took the baby out of the hospital and put it in foster care,” Hayward said.
Another issue, Hayward said, is the agency’s practice of taking a newborn from the biological parents based solely on the fact the parents have other children who are currently in foster care.
Hayward said the law says agencies can do that only if a parent has previously had his or her parental rights to other children terminated. Luzerne County is doing so even when that is not the case, he said.
“If you have a child in the system, as far as they are concerned, every child is in the system. That’s not the law,” he said. “They can do whatever they want and get away with it, and no one is challenging them.”
Joe DeVizia, director of human services for the county, said he was advised Wednesday that Hayward planned on filing a lawsuit. DeVizia said he did not know what the specific allegations are, but insisted Children and Youth is working for the best interest of children.
“There are a lot of issues surrounding why kids are in placement,” DeVizia said. “Our number one concern is always the safety and welfare of children.”
More than two dozen parents, some of whom are plaintiffs in the pending suit, gathered at the Luzerne County Courthouse on Wednesday for an impromptu rally.
DeVizia said he and Children and Youth Director Frank Castano spent nearly five hours meeting with 15 to 20 parents. He said he would ensure their concerns were addressed.
Hayward said the suit will name Children and Youth as a defendant, as well as individual agency employees, the county and its human services department. The suit will not name judges who presided over dependency court, he said.
PA Child Care wants to block destruction of juvenile records
Attorney argues that action could destroy financial documents.
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
By Mark Guydish
June 5, 2010
WILKES-BARRE – An attorney for PA Child Care presented three witnesses and sifted through nearly 600 pages of documents Friday in an effort to get a federal judge to block the destruction of juvenile records as ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Representing PA Child Care, Western Pa. Child Care, and Mid Atlantic Youth Services, Pittsburgh Attorney Bernard Schneider spent nearly two hours presenting his case for an injunction from U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo. Schneider argued that the Supreme Court order to expunge thousands of juvenile records was so broad it could lead to destruction of financial records needed for state-mandated audits, admission and treatment records needed to show compliance with state regulations, and records that could be critical in defense against lawsuits filed by children and parents.
PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care are at the center of the Luzerne County juvenile court scandal. Mid Atlantic was the agency contracted to provide services in the centers. In January, 2009, then-Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella and then-Senior Judge Michael Conahan agreed to plead guilty to charges that they took millions from the owner and builder of the facilities in exchange for actions from the bench that benefited the centers. The judges later withdrew the pleas and were indicted. Conahan agreed to a new plea deal last month.
Schneider noted many financial documents include the names of children, which means they may have to be destroyed under the terms of the court order. That would leave the centers incapable of meeting state-mandated auditing requirements. He also argued many of the treatment records and those tracking children as they entered and went through the centers must, by state law, be preserved if the centers want to pass state inspections.
Former State Department of Public Welfare Southeast Region director Anne Shenberger testified that failing to comply with state regulations four times in a row would result in closing a facility, and that lack of some of the records Schneider presented would be deemed as non-compliance. Under cross-examination, however by attorney Sol Weiss, she conceded DPW would have to consult its legal department to see if records expunged by court order would be exempt from compliance requirements.
Schneider went through numerous records he insisted could prove the centers had no responsibility in certain issues raised by attorneys representing parents and children who have sued the centers – as well as others involved in the scandal. He showed Caputo one “confession” a juvenile had written as part of his treatment, in which he admitted sexually abusing his younger half-sister.
Attorneys who filed the suits “allege that kids were put there when they shouldn’t have been put there,” Schneider said. “If he did it, they’re not entitled to damages.”
Schneider also showed documents that proved some children were put into detention prior to facing Ciavarella in court, meaning the detention was not ordered by the tainted judge, but by a probation officer. In those cases, at least part of their detention had nothing to do with the judges, a fact that could be important in the lawsuit defense.
Schneider also argued that Caputo should grant the injunction because the state Supreme Court order to expunge contradicted an order Caputo himself made regarding records related to the civil suit. “This order tells me to get rid of documents you told me to retain,” Schneider said.
Paperwork filed by Schneider as well as some of his opening arguments Friday leveled charges of bias against Special Master Arthur Grim – a senior judge appointed by the state supreme court to review the juvenile cases and make recommendations. But Caputo was bluntly curt on that point, saying he would not address the issue “so let’s abandon that right now.”
Weiss, one of the lead attorneys for the parents and children in the civil suits, countered that no one has said the records in question have to be destroyed, and that the Supreme Court has neither cited the attorney nor ruled him in contempt of the order, so there is no immediate need for an injunction. He said he has sought clarification from the Supreme Court on its order, and accused Schneider of deliberately withholding even records that did not have any children’s names on them sought by the family’s attorneys. Schneider insisted he stopped turning over any records once the order to expunge was given, preferring to err on the side of caution.
At one point, Caputo leaned forward and said to both attorneys: “Isn’t the simple answer to ask the Supreme Court to fix its order?”
Schneider countered that there were other potential lawsuits not involving the attorneys in the courtroom which would also need the records. Attorneys representing Attorney Robert Powell and Developer Robert Mericle – the two men accused of making the payments – spoke in support of the injunction, noting they have no standing before the Supreme Court since they have no claim to the records, yet the records could be relevant in their defense as well. Mericle built the centers while Powell was one of the two original owners of them, though he has since sold his interest to his partner, Greg Zapala.
Caputo made no ruling, but promised “I’ll be in touch with you shortly.”
Lawyers: Orders on kids-for-cash records conflict each other
Citizens’ Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
By Dave Janoski
June 5, 2010
WILKES-BARRE - Attorneys in civil-rights suits filed by hundreds of juveniles jailed in the kids-for-cash scandal tangled Friday over the enforcement of two seemingly contradictory orders issued by a federal judge and the state Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo, presiding over the claims of former juvenile defendants who allege they were wrongfully imprisoned by a former judge accused of taking kickbacks from the former co-owner of two for-profit detention centers, has ordered all parties in the suit to preserve records that could be possible evidence.
But the state Supreme Court, which has vacated about 6,500 juvenile court sentences handed down by the former Luzerne County judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., has issued orders to the companies that own and run the centers directing them to expunge the records of the former detainees. The court has also ordered the county juvenile court and juvenile probation department to expunge their records of those cases, but to maintain them under seal for use in the federal litigation.
Appearing before Caputo on Friday, attorneys for PA Child Care, Western PA Child Care and Mid-Atlantic Youth Services, which own and operate the two centers in Pittston Township and Butler County and are among the defendants in the civil-rights suits, argued that the state Supreme Court order will force them to destroy treatment and financial records that might not be included in the county files. They include records of the time spent in the facilities by each of the former detainees and in some cases, records of counseling sessions or exercises in which detainees admitted to committing the crimes that landed them in detention.
The records could be key to the companies' defense and counter juveniles' claims that they are eligible for damages for wrongful imprisonment, the companies' attorney, Bernard R. Schneider, told Caputo.
Attorneys for the juveniles "are alleging kids were put away when they shouldn't have been put away," Schneider said. "If they did it, they don't get damages."
Schneider argued that Caputo should issue an order taking over jurisdiction of the records from the state Supreme Court.
Attorneys for the former juvenile defendants argued that Schneider and other attorneys for the companies were interpreting the expungement orders too broadly. They recently asked the state Supreme Court to clarify its order to conform to Caputo's ruling. The documents in that action have been sealed.
Sol H. Weiss, one of the juveniles' attorneys, said he agreed the companies' records should be preserved, but noted the Supreme Court has not cited the companies for contempt for not destroying the records. He argued the federal court should leave it to the Supreme Court to clarify its own order.
After hearing testimony about the records Friday from two officials from the detention-center companies and a consultant, Caputo said he will rule soon on whether he will intervene in the expungement issue.
Ciavarella, who is representing himself in the civil-rights suits, did not attend. He is awaiting a criminal trial on racketeering charges. His co-defendant, former judge Michael T. Conahan, recently agreed to plead guilty.
Ciavarella and Conahan are accused of accepting $2.8 million from a former co-owner of the centers, Robert J. Powell, and the contractor who built them, Robert Mericle. Powell, who sold his interest in the centers to his former partner in 2008, and Mericle have pleaded guilty and are expected to be prosecution witnesses at Ciavarella's trial.
Ciavarella, Conahan, Powell, Mericle and several companies they own that have been implicated in the scandal are among the defendants in the civil-rights suits.
'Sexting' Leads To Child Porn Charges For Teens
Associated Press (AP) – Harrisburg Bureau
June 5, 2010
At Susquenita High School, 15 miles outside of Harrisburg, Pa., eight students, ranging in age from 13 to 17, have learned a tough lesson about "sexting."
"Take a photograph of yourself or somebody else nude and send it to somebody else, you've committed the crime," said Perry County District Attorney Charles Chenot, who has prosecuted two sexting cases involving a total of 10 minors in the past year.
Chenot said he considers sexting a form of child pornography and wants kids to understand once those images are in someone else's hands they could wind up anywhere, even the Internet, possibly forever.
The teens at Susquenita High, who all knew each other, were accused last fall of using their cell phones to take, send, or receive nude photos of each other and in one case a short video of a oral sex. That resulted in a felony pornography charge for each minor.
"That was the only charge that really fits what they were doing," said Chenot. "What would have been the best thing to charge would be something that would have been a little less severe but would still draw these teenagers' attention to the wrongness of their acts."
Former U.S. Rep. Don Bailey, a Harrisburg civil rights attorney, is skeptical.
"Should they be crimes at all?" Bailey asked. "This is an over-zealous and inappropriate application of the criminal law."
Bailey represents the lone student from Susquenita who has not pleaded guilty to lesser charges, which would require him to take a class on victimization and perform community service. After successfully completing the so-called "diversionary program" and a period of probation, those juvenile conviction records would be expunged, according to Chenot.
"Are you going to stop kids from sexting that way?" Bailey asked. "Maybe you should try talking to mom and dad."
At the state capitol in Harrisburg, freshman Rep. Seth Grove, R-York County, agrees.
"My view is kids should not be held under the same laws as child predators," Grove said.
His bill, which would limit the punishment for sexting, has passed the state House Judiciary Committee and is due for a full floor vote this month.
"What we're trying to do is say: 'Let's not charge a felony, let's get a common sense law together that charges a misdemeanor,'" Grove said.
Pennsylvania's proposed reform is typical of the 20 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, that have considered new sexting laws for minors during the past two years. Five states -- Arizona, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Vermont -- have already adopted changes.
"We need the appropriate punishment for the crime," Grove said.
But some advocates object that sexting, especially between teens who consent to exchange the images, is considered a crime in the first place.
"Why should we criminalize a kid for taking and possessing a photo of herself," said Marsha Levick, legal director of the non-profit Juvenile Law Center. "There is no problem that needs to be solved."
How schools find out about the nude photos has also provoked a debate with some child advocates complaining that schools are on shaky legal footing when it comes to searching students' cell phones.
A case in point pits a 19-year-old woman known as "NN" against Tunkhannock High School, her former school, near Scranton, Pa. She graduated last year.
"I took semi-nude pictures of myself and saved them into my phone," NN told CBS News in an exclusive interview.
When NN was still 17, a teacher confiscated her phone one morning because NN was talking on it before class. The school bans student cell phone usage on school grounds. Her principal, Gregory Ellsworth, then scrolled through the phone's digital photo album.
"He told me that he found explicit photos on my phone and that he sent it away to a crime lab," NN said. "I was really embarrassed, humiliated, because it was personal."
With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, NN sued the school last month seeking damages for invasion of privacy, accusing the school of violating her First Amendment right to free speech and her Fourth Amendment protection from illegal searches and seizure.
"A search of the device is akin to browsing through someone's address and appointment book, opening and reading letters sent by U.S. mail, and rummaging through a family photo album or viewing home videos," the lawsuit says.
Ellsworth had no comment. Michael Levin, an attorney for the school district, said, "I don't think any school district should tolerate kids bringing nude photos to school whether they be in electronic or paper format." Levin said Supreme Court rulings supported the school's actions.
Besides being suspended from school for three days, NN also faced child pornography charges from the Wyoming County District Attorney. To avoid them, she agreed to a deal, like seven of the Susquenita defendants, submitting to a five-week course on violence and victimization, meeting twice a week.
"If I was victimized, it was just like by my school," NN said. "I don't think by prosecuting them it's helping them at all."
But Chenot, the Perry County district attorney, said he is just trying to protect kids.
"Probably it's harmless when they take the pictures of each other and just share them between them, but the potential is there for there to be widespread distribution," said Chenot. "What we have here is a case where technology has gotten ahead of the laws."
Editorial: Fix state JCB
Scranton Times Tribune
June 6, 2010
One of the ways in which the juvenile court scandal in Luzerne County spread far beyond the county border was its exposure of flaws in the statewide system for disciplining judges - a key element in the administration of justice.
After former Luzerne County Judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella were accused by a federal grand jury of gross abuses of justice in juvenile court, the state Legislature, administration and judiciary formed the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice. Its mission was to examine the Luzerne County justice meltdown, beyond the scope of the criminal charges.
That, it did. Its final report pointed out failures in many aspects of the county system. And, it spared no words in calling for sweeping reforms of the Judicial Conduct Board, an arm of the state Supreme Court that is responsible for judicial disciplinary cases.
The commission's hearings revealed that the JCB had received and reviewed a detailed complaint against then-President Judge Conahan in 2006, but did nothing with it. That enabled the abuse of justice to continue in Luzerne County.
"The commission has come to two inescapable conclusions," the report said. "The Judicial Conduct Board lacks sufficient oversight to assure that it is fulfilling its constitutional duties and obligations; and the existing confidentiality provisions relating to the work of the Judicial Conduct Board prohibit any meaningful oversight and accountability."
After the commission exposed the JCB's failure to pursue the Conahan complaint, the JCB announced that it had changed some of its internal policies. The Interbranch Commission noted those changes but declared them "deficient" and inadequate to effect the needed reform.
The Supreme Court has the administrative authority to implement some of the specific reforms recommended by the Interbranch Commission, including the appointment process for members.
In the wake of the Luzerne County scandal, and the role of the JCB's failure to act against Mr. Conahan in prolonging it, the Supreme Court should do everything in its power to improve the disciplinary system for judges.
Justice meltdown seen at all levels
Citizens’ Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
June 7, 2010
One of the ways in which the juvenile court scandal in Luzerne County spread far beyond the county border was its exposure of flaws in the statewide system for disciplining judges - a key element in the administration of justice.
After former Luzerne County Judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. were accused by a federal grand jury of gross abuses of justice in juvenile court, the state Legislature, administration and judiciary formed the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice. Its mission was to examine the Luzerne County justice meltdown, beyond the scope of the criminal charges.
That, it did. Its final report pointed out failures in many aspects of the county system. And, it spared no words in calling for sweeping reforms of the Judicial Conduct Board, an arm of the state Supreme Court that is responsible for judicial disciplinary cases.
The commission's hearings revealed that the JCB had received and reviewed a detailed complaint against then-President Judge Conahan in 2006, but did nothing with it. That enabled the abuse of justice to continue in Luzerne County.
"The commission has come to two inescapable conclusions," the report said. "The Judicial Conduct Board lacks sufficient oversight to assure that it is fulfilling its constitutional duties and obligations; and the existing confidentiality provisions relating to the work of the Judicial Conduct Board prohibit any meaningful oversight and accountability."
After the commission exposed the JCB's failure to pursue the Conahan complaint, the JCB announced that it had changed some of its internal policies. The Interbranch Commission noted those changes but declared them "deficient" and inadequate to effect the needed reform.
The Supreme Court has the administrative authority to implement some of the specific reforms recommended by the Interbranch Commission, including the appointment process for members.
In the wake of the Luzerne County scandal, and the role of the JCB's failure to act against Conahan in prolonging it, the Supreme Court should do everything in its power to improve the disciplinary system for judges.
Panel chairman: Juveniles must retain waiver rights, with safeguards
Citizens’ Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
By Robert Swift
June 9, 2010
HARRISBURG - Juvenile defendants should be able to waive legal representation, but safeguards are needed so it doesn't become commonplace like it did in Luzerne County under two former judges, the chairman of an investigating commission told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.
The members of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice wrestled with the question of whether the state should mandate that all juveniles be presented by attorneys and decided to recommend a different approach, state Superior Court Judge John M. Cleland said.
Restrictions should be put on the counsel waiver, he said. At each of the usually half-dozen proceedings in a juvenile court case, the judge should be required to pose a set of questions to a defendant about whether he wants to appear without counsel. At any proceeding where a juvenile waives his or her right, the court would appoint a standby attorney.
Cleland was an initial witness at the first legislative hearing on the commission's scathing report issued two weeks ago about the breakdown of Luzerne County's juvenile justice system, federal corruption charges against former judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan and its impact on thousands of juvenile defendants sentenced to a privately owned detention facility.
The legal representation issue stems from revelations that more than half of the juveniles who appeared in Ciavarella's courtroom between 2003 and 2008 did so without counsel. Witnesses told the commission that Ciavarella pressured defendants to waive their right to counsel and had set up a table outside his courtroom with waiver forms to sign.
A common theme to the commission's recommendations is restoring checks and balances to the juvenile justice system, particularly in Luzerne County. This can be accomplished by mandating continuing education about the state juvenile act for judges, lawyers, hearing officers and masters handling juvenile court cases; requiring that judges state on the record how their handling of each juvenile case conforms with the juvenile act and speeding up the appeals process in juvenile cases, Cleland said.
The commission's decision not to recommend opening juvenile hearings to the public was made with an awareness about the longevity of material posted on the Internet, Cleland said. Postings about testimony in open hearings can follow both defendants and victims for the rest of their lives, he said.
The commission report notes that current state law allows for open hearings if a juvenile defendant is 14 or older and is charged with a felony or 12 or older and charged with serious offenses such as murder, robbery or sexual crimes
Area lawmakers follow up juvie commission report
Eachus introduces bills; Baker says all state government branches must follow through.
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
By BILL O ’ BOYLE
June 10, 2010
Two area legislators want to make sure the work of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice has lasting effects on the juvenile justice system.
State Rep. Todd A. Eachus, D-Butler Township, said Wednesday that he has introduced legislation that would make critical improvements to the state’s juvenile justice system based on recommendations from the commission.
State Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Lehman Township, said the commission’s diligence needs to be matched by follow-through on the part of all three branches of state government.
“By starkly detailing the breakdown of the system, by casting the net far and wide for reform recommendations, by reaching agreement on twenty categories of recommended changes, the commission made it very hard for any part of state government to be indifferent to the situation,” Baker said on the Senate floor.
Eachus sponsored the bill that created the commission, which was comprised of 11 members appointed by all three branches of state government – the legislature, the courts and the governor’s administration. The commission last month released a final report outlining systemic problems that occurred in Luzerne County’s juvenile justice system, along with concrete recommendations for fixing those problems.
“The commission did a remarkable job of gathering facts and information and presenting a comprehensive set of findings and recommendations,” Eachus said. “Now it’s up to us – the legislature, the courts and the executive branch – to make the necessary changes to restore faith in our juvenile justice system.”
Eachus has introduced two bills aimed at improving the way the juvenile justice system operates in Pennsylvania – both for juvenile offenders and the victims of juvenile crime.
“We must give youth offenders the chance to redeem themselves so they can become productive citizens in their community,” Eachus said. “They need to be able to see the impact of their crimes and understand the consequences.”
Eachus introduced H.B.-2571, which would allow the state’s Office of the Victim Advocate to also advocate for victims of juvenile crime. He said the bill would ensure there is a statewide victim advocate to represent the interest of victims of crimes committed by juvenile offenders at the state level.
Eachus also introduced H.B.-2572, which would provide restitution to the victims of the crimes committed by juvenile offenders in counties, such as Luzerne, where the adjudicated cases had been dismissed by the court. The bill would also offer grants to counties across the commonwealth to provide services to victims of juvenile crime.
Baker said the Interbranch Commission report “is chilling in its depiction of calculated corruption and compelling in its call to action.”
“In answering questions about how a good system could go so wrong, Judge John Cleland used powerful words – greed, incompetence, intimidation, abdication of responsibility,” Baker said.
“There was a conspiracy of corruption led by two judges. There was a conspiracy of silence within the courthouse. There was a conspiracy of acceptance within too much of the community.”
Baker said “indisputable is that assembly-line injustice adversely affected over 6,000 kids and their families.”
Eachus introduces juvenile Justice reform bills
Scranton Times Tribune
By Robert Swift
June 10, 2010
HARRISBURG - Two initial bills to put the recommendations of the state commission investigating the Luzerne County courthouse scandal into effect were introduced Wednesday by House Majority Leader Todd Eachus.
One bill would create a $500,000 state fund to provide restitution payments to Luzerne County residents who didn't receive any court-ordered restitution because of state Supreme Court orders vacating convictions of juvenile offenders sentenced wrongly by two former judges to a privately run juvenile detention facility. When the convictions were vacated, the restitution awards were vacated, too.
The Supreme Court vacated sentences handed down by former Judges Mark Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan for thousands of juvenile offenders. The two former judges face federal corruption charges for accepting kickbacks for placing offenders in a privately owned detention facility.
The restitution measure by Mr. Eachus, D-116, Hazleton, provides for a court-appointed master to develop a system to determine the amount of restitution owed and distribute the funds accordingly.
"We must ensure that the victims of juvenile crime receive justice," Mr. Eachus said.
A second bill would expand the jurisdiction of the state Office of Victim Advocate to include victims of juvenile crime. This office was created in the 1990s so the interests of victims of crimes committed by adult offenders would be represented in court proceedings.
Mr. Eachus plans to introduce additional bills related to juvenile justice recommendations in the report issued last month by the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice.
Senate and House committees are starting to conduct hearings based on the report.
Records to remain for defendants in “kids for cash” suits, judge rules.
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER
June 10, 2010
SCRANTON - A federal judge has granted a motion filed by some of the defendants in the “kids for cash” lawsuits that sought to prevent the destruction of records they say are crucial to the defense of the cases.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo trumps prior orders issued by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court and special master Arthur Grim, which directed that the records of thousands of juveniles who appeared in Luzerne County court be destroyed.
Bernard Schneider, who represents the two juvenile centers at the heart of the juvenile scandal, sought an injunction, arguing the orders were overly broad and would force the centers to destroy records that are needed for the defense of several pending federal civil suits, which allege juveniles were wrongly incarcerated to profit his clients and others.
The injunction was filed on behalf of PA Child Care and its sister facility, Western PA Child Care, as well as Mid Atlantic Youth Services, the company that provided treatment programs at the juvenile detention centers.
At issue are an Oct. 29, 2009 ruling by the Supreme Court which vacated the convictions of all juveniles who appeared before former juvenile judge Mark Ciavarella from 2003 to 2008, and a Dec. 21, 2009 ruling by Grim that ordered the destruction of records relating to those convictions.
Realizing that some of the records were important to the federal lawsuits, Grim permitted certain records be preserved under seal. The order pertained only to documents filed in county court and the juvenile probation department, however. It did not protect records in the possession of the juvenile centers or Mid Atlantic Youth Services.
Caputo heard arguments on the matter last week. In his ruling, Caputo expressed reluctance to interfere in a state court ruling, but said he felt compelled to do so because the Supreme Court and Grim – though unwittingly – had placed the defendants in the federal litigation at an unfair disadvantage.
“The plaintiffs … have had evidence of their claims protected from destruction, while, at the same time, the defendants’ records or evidence needed to defend themselves are arguably subject to destruction,” Caputo wrote.
Caputo’s ruling relates only to the destruction of the records of juveniles who are involved in the federal lawsuits. It does not pertain to juveniles who are not part of the suit, or negate the Supreme Court ruling that vacates the convictions of all juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella within the stated time frame.
The order also directs that the injunction be dissolved within 30 days of the resolution of the federal civil case, which will allow for the expungement of the records to proceed.
Judge's ruling preserves detention centers' records
Citizens’ Voice (Wilkes-Barre)
By Dave Janoski
June 10, 2010
WILKES-BARRE - A federal judge issued an injunction Wednesday allowing the operators of two for-profit juvenile detention centers at the heart of the kids-for-cash scandal to preserve records they claim are subject to destruction under a state Supreme Court order.
The detention-center operators are among those being sued in U.S. District Court by hundreds of former juvenile defendants in Luzerne County Court who claim they were wrongfully imprisoned in the alleged kids-for-cash scheme. A former co-owner of the centers has pleaded guilty to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to two county judges to direct county contracts and juveniles to the centers.
The state Supreme Court vacated all of the juvenile-court rulings issued from 2003 through 2008 by one of the former judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., and ordered the expungement of the juvenile records of up to 6,500 former defendants, including records held by the detention-center operators. The court subsequently altered its order to allow former defendants to request that Luzerne County maintain their court records under seal for use as evidence in the civil-rights cases.
The operators of the detention centers in Pittston Township and Butler County - PA Child Care LLC, Western PA Child Care LLC and Mid-Atlantic Youth Services - argued the destruction of their records would hinder their ability to defend themselves in the civil-rights suits and asked U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo to issue an injunction preserving them.
Caputo granted the injunction Wednesday, citing a federal law that allows federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings in limited cases in order to preserve the federal courts' jurisdiction and judgments.
In his order, Caputo wrote that by preserving the court records for use by the former juvenile defendants, but ordering the destruction of the detention-center records, the Supreme Court left the centers' operators "in a quandary regarding their ability to use their records in their defense."
Caputo wrote his injunction was "necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of the litigation before this Court."
Under Caputo's order, the centers' records will be preserved until 30 days after the resolution of the civil-rights cases and any that are used as evidence must be filed under seal to protect the identities of the former juvenile defendants.
Opinion: Don't let kids waive counsel
Scranton Times Tribune
June 10, 2010
One of the most appalling aspects of the Luzerne County juvenile justice scandal was that so many professionals within the legal system facilitated it.
Former Judge Mark A. Ciavarella faces federal racketeering charges and former Judge Michael T. Conahan has agreed to plead guilty for their alleged roles. But noncriminal investigations subsequently made clear that prosecution and defense lawyers and court personnel who were supposed to safeguard the juvenile defendants' rights looked the other way.
A key element was the routine practice of having juveniles waive their right to counsel. Luzerne County juveniles did so at rates far higher than anywhere else in the state, clearly indicating that they did not receive detailed counseling about the consequences of doing so.
The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice revealed many failings, beyond those of the two disgraced judges.
But, given what happened in Luzerne County, one of its recommendations on reforming the system should be considered with extreme caution.
Commission Chairman Judge John M. Cleland testified Tuesday before the state Senate Judiciary Committee that the ability of juveniles to waive their right to counsel should be restricted but not eliminated. He advocated a standard instruction to be read by judges to juveniles regarding such waivers, and that a standby attorney be in the courtroom when a juvenile signs a waiver.
Those precautions are fine as far as they go. But the scope of the scandal calls for the best possible solution. That includes eliminating counsel waivers for juveniles, most of whom are inherently less capable than adult defendants of making well-informed decisions.
Your view: Bereaved Erie mom urges new approach to juvenile justice
Erie Times-News
By SONYA ARRINGTON, Contributing writer
June 11, 2010
Changing juvenile laws will help our children become a mold for success.
I am a mother who recently lost her son to a senseless act of teen violence. The young man who was responsible for my son's death had quite a history of juvenile offenses.
Every day, when I turn on the television and read the newspaper, I see another youth responsible for gun violence. The juvenile justice system requires a new approach.
Some of our young people are becoming a menace to our society and a threat to our safety and welfare. I believe if young people persist in committing violent offenses, our youth should undergo an intensive screening or evaluation process to determine if they should be placed in a more isolated environment to get the help they need.
Predicting criminal behavior can be difficult. However, the decision-making process of our juvenile officials requires greater structure and less discretion. Even if children determined to present such a threat are held until the time they are 21 years old, it will increase the potential of saving their lives. We need to get each child the help that they need before they do something that will alter all of our lives for the worst.
I ask myself, as I am sure every similarly situated parent does, how is it that some of these violent young men and women who would dare take such actions against another remain on the street? How is it possible we keep missing the signs these young people manifest before it is too late?
At some point, we must reassess and evaluate how our juvenile system is operating. Sending juveniles to detention centers for 60 to 90 days is not having a significant impact on the lives of these offenders.
These teens are not being effectively challenged or conditioned to change their way of thinking and striving to be better people. Maybe we need to consider detaining them until they have proven they are worthy enough to become part of our community again.
I think we would have fewer senseless acts of teen violence committed out of rage or from severe bouts of depression. Typically, our troubled youth begin by committing minor offenses, and as time goes by, their conduct escalates into murder, rape and robbery, changing all of our lives forever.
As parents, we have a moral and legal obligation to teach our children, and make sure they get the treatment they need to become successful young men and women.
My husband and I know we are not alone. Others have grieved before us, and others will grieve after us if we continue to ignore the emotional and mental health conditions of our children. The people who have stewardship to evaluate and manage our children's treatment in the juvenile system must make certain they are not making decisions for the sake of expediency, or ridding themselves of a responsibility because a particular juvenile and their family have become a burden to the system.
We need juvenile laws changed to help, not necessarily punish, our youth. I want every child's life to become a success story, not a tragedy.
However, the responsibility for protecting our community should not be left to the authorities. The molding and shaping of our children's success starts at home.
Our behavior sets the tone for what they will contribute in their community. I think all parents need to focus on being the best parents that they can be so that our children will maximize their potential and not end up a criminal defendant or a crime victim.
There are other problems that lead to juvenile delinquency: poverty, teenage pregnancy and single-parent households. We need to implement preventive measures to help our youth become success stories. Children need and require guidance. We place unnecessary stress on our police, juvenile and adult probation, and the office of the Erie County District Attorney.
I personally believe the police are doing a very good job of capturing those people who are engaging in violent acts in our community. However, we can't expect law enforcement to help our community if we don't help ourselves.
Parents need to be held accountable for our children's actions until they are of legal age. Accountability will force us to be more aware of our children's problems, their friends and their decisions. I hear all too often the children are our future. If it's true, let's invest in our future by becoming more involved in our children's lives and leading by example.
SONYA ARRINGTON, of Erie, is the founder of Mothers Against Teen Violence. She and her husband, Steve, are the parents of Steve Arrington II, who was shot to death as he walked out of his uncle's store at 1825 Buffalo Road on Jan. 5.
Top Stories - National
Opinion: County policy on young juveniles sets model for the nation
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
By Dave Cortese, Special to the Mercury News
May 29, 2010
Although there may be competing theories about the effectiveness of our juvenile justice system, one point on which we should all agree is that incarcerating kids 12 and younger in jail-like facilities is wrong, period.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors made a bold move when, earlier this month, they adopted, at my request, a policy that youth offenders 12 and younger should not be placed in Santa Clara County Juvenile Hall. This policy is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, and I hope other jurisdictions will follow.
State law requires counties to maintain juvenile halls but places no limit on lowest age. Any parent will tell you that there is a huge difference in the maturity and understanding of a teen (16 or 17 years old) versus a preteen (10, 11 or 12 years old). The notion of putting all ages together under one roof and one instructional model is troubling. But that is exactly what has happened at juvenile hall, where young kids have been sent by the courts through the years to wait out the disposition of their cases. Just last year, three siblings (all younger than 12) were placed at juvenile hall for a weekend while the justice system tried to figure out what to do with them. These children were never ultimately convicted of any crime.
As a parent of four children, including a 10-year-old, I can sense the anguish of a parent whose child has been placed at juvenile hall for an indeterminable amount of time, for a crime that perhaps he or she didn't commit.
As a former school board member, I have a long history of working with at-risk youth. I've helped create partnerships between the cities, the county and nonprofits to place services and mentoring programs at schools. I have seen personally how troubled youth need very specialized help in order to find their rightful path in the world. But this is not just my opinion.
A study by the county's Juvenile Justice Commission of youth ages 12 and under who were placed at juvenile hall paints a sad picture of these young offenders' tragic lives. Many had:
- Mental-health diagnoses and needed mental-health intervention.
- A history of abuse and neglect.
- Experienced at least one (if not frequent) traumatic incident.
- Not even one stable parent able to take custody of them.
National experts have confirmed this profile of our youngest offenders. And local organizations such as EMQ, UnityCare, Kids in Common and the Bill Wilson Center all agree that this population should not be placed with older offenders.
The county's juvenile hall, despite great leadership, employees and genuine efforts to provide diverse programming aimed at rehabilitation, is still a detention facility, first and foremost, and such a detention center cannot address the needs of this younger age group. Youths such as these need to be in a homelike environment. Even the loosely drafted state law on juvenile detention requires as much. For the most difficult cases, such a living arrangement can be provided by professional foster care parents, trained in how to handle these kids and the difficult behaviors they exhibit.
By adopting a policy that calls for every effort to be made for placing such youth outside of juvenile hall, we challenge ourselves to find new methods, new treatments and new settings to help these youth rehabilitate and rejoin the community. Already great strides are being made in partnership with our compassionate community partners to create placement options here in the county. Other counties are interested in our work, so we will partner with them around new strategies as well.
Although it's rare, young children will sometimes commit true criminal acts. We must resist the urge to permanently label these young souls as bad, because they are not. In most cases they are sick, and we have to do everything in our power to help them become healthy. The board's adoption of this policy is an important step in that direction.
DAVE CORTESE represents District 3 on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. He wrote this article for this newspaper.
Your Opinions: Not all juveniles treated the same
The Battle Creek Enquirer (MI)
June 1, 2010
Your editorial discussing the recent Supreme Court opinion barring juvenile life without parole for non-homicide cases ("Holding Out Hope," May 20) notes that Missouri is the gold standard in responding to juvenile delinquency. Missouri has a reform-minded, research-based response to juvenile crime and the benefits are clear: the state reports one of the lowest recidivism rates in the country, under 10 percent.
Unfortunately, Missouri does not provide the same level of care for all of its juveniles: those who are transferred out to the adult system - a possibility for children as young as 13 years old - can find themselves serving lengthy prison terms alongside adults. And, Missouri has at least 78 juveniles serving life without parole, none of whom will benefit from the recent ruling because their crime involved a homicide.
Young people re-classified as adults are ineligible for the exemplary programs and services that Missouri has to offer in its juvenile system. Missouri, and all states, should bring the spirit of its juvenile justice philosophy to all youth who break the law by retaining them in the juvenile system.
Ashley Nellis, Ph.D.
Research analyst
The Sentencing Project
Washington, D.C.
Paterson Proposes Juvenile Justice Overhaul
The New York Times - Online
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
June 2, 2010
Gov. David A. Paterson introduced legislation on Wednesday to begin overhauling New York’s troubled juvenile prison system, in what aides described at a first step toward broader changes long sought by critics of the system.
The legislation would prohibit judges from placing youths in state juvenile prisons unless they had been found guilty of a violent felony or a sex crime or a judge had determined that a youth posed a significant risk to themselves or others. Such a move would set the stage to significantly shrink the number of youths in state custody.
The bill would also establish an independent office to monitor and, where necessary, investigate problems at the state’s youth prisons, which are run by the state’s Office of Children and Family Services.
“We have a responsibility to provide the highest level of care to the children in the custody of the state,” Governor Paterson said in a statement. “This bill will create a mechanism for ensuring that systemwide issues are evaluated by an independent body and that only youth who have committed certain crimes or who are deemed to be a significant risk to public safety are placed with O.C.F.S.”
Both are steps recommended last year by a task force appointed by Mr. Paterson and led by Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
The task force found that New York’s juvenile prisons were broken almost beyond repair, with young people battling mental illness or addiction held alongside violent offenders in abysmal facilities where they received little counseling or schooling and sometimes faced physical abuse at the hands of guards.
The problems are so severe that the United States Department of Justice threatened last year to take over the entire state system unless New York officials moved to fix them. Negotiations to avert a takeover are ongoing.
Third of kids don't finish troubled-youth program
Associated Press (AP) – Baltimore Bureau (MD)
By Brian Witte
June 4, 2010
Posted on:
More than a third of kids failed to complete a treatment program at a center for troubled youth that reopened last year after a resident died in 2007, Maryland's juvenile justice watchdog group said this week.
Since the reopening in July 2009 under new management, three students have successfully completed the program at the Silver Oak Academy in Carroll County, the Maryland Juvenile Justice Monitoring Unit said in a report covering January to March.
The monitor noted that the program is new and will take time to develop. However, the report pointed out that 23 of 68 admitted youth have failed the program and been discharged — a 34 percent failure rate.
Youth who do not successfully complete the program are usually returned to a secure detention center while the Department of Juvenile Services looks for another appropriate placement, the report said.
"The department will pay a heavy price at per-diem rates for large numbers of youth who must then start over in a new treatment program," the monitor said in the report.
Rite of Passage, the Nevada company that runs the program, said the facility is just beginning to see outcomes of the average nine-month stay.
For example, one student received a high school diploma in early April, just days after the period covered by the monitor's report. The company also said six students successfully passed the GED pretest, and two more are expected to complete their high school diploma requirements in the next quarter.
The company said it agreed with the monitor's finding that Silver Oak Academy "is still a new program and will take time to develop."
The academy in Keymar is on the former grounds of Bowling Brook Preparatory Academy, which was closed when a youth died after staff restrained him.
The monitor also said the administration must adequately address the "high number" of cases in which students were absent without leave.
The company said 10 students have been AWOL since the program opened, including three that occurred off-site.
"None of these numbers are acceptable and [Rite of Passage] has worked with [the Department of Juvenile Services] and law enforcement to refine procedures," the company said in its response.
The company noted that failure to follow basic supervision procedures caused most of the runaways. Rite of Passage also said involved staff have been disciplined.
'Juvenile justice reform' -- or a clear-and-present threat?
The Washington Post – Online
By Colbert King
June 4, 2010
Manuel D. Sanchez, 29, of Capitol Heights was with a crew of people hired a week ago to clean up the area in the rear of an apartment house in the 4600 block of Hillside Road in Southeast Washington. Sanchez didn't make it home. Just after 2:00 p.m. last Friday he was shot to death.
Sad how things happen. Sanchez was trying to clean up the District when a ward of the city -- 16-year-old Javon Hale, a juvenile defendant who was, at the time, in the custody of the D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services -- allegedly shot and killed him, according to police. Hale has been arrested and charged as an adult with felony murder.
But, you may ask, if this 16-year-old was in custody of the city, what in the world was he doing in the rear of an apartment house in Southeast D.C. with a gun?
Two well-placed government sources said that although Hale had been committed to DYRS custody by a court, the department chose to place him with a community facility. That facility gave Hale a weekend pass, and, voila, he found his way to Hillside Road SE. After the shooting, according to the government sources, Hale returned to the community facility -- having exhausted his agreed-upon free time in the city.
The progressives call this kind of community placement "juvenile justice reform." How many DYRS youth have been killed, have killed, or are escapees this year? Never mind. Naughty question. I say it's a disgrace and a clear-and-present threat to public safety. But the admission of mistakes just isn't in the nature of the "enlightened."
Top Prison Official Defends Juvenile Justice System
Correction Commissioner: 'I Think Things Are Going Well Now'
WRTV-TV (IN)
June 4, 2010
The head of the Indiana Department of Correction told 6News that real change is being made within the state's juvenile prisons, which have been plagued with allegations of sexual abuse and filthy conditions.
Department of Correction Commissioner Edwin Buss and his staff testified Thursday before a three-member Department of Justice review panel on prison rape.
It came after a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 36 percent of inmates at the Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility reported being sexually abused, about three times higher than the national average.
Staff members testified that the facility has made changes since the survey was taken, including requiring additional training, increasing video surveillance and instituting five-minute watch tours.
Buss sat down with 6News' Joanna Massee after the hearing and said that progress is being made across the juvenile correction system.
"I think things are going well now. Obviously, there's always room for improvement," Buss said.
A Jan. 29 letter and report from U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Gov. Mitch Daniels detailed troubles within the former Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility, including a mentally ill inmate left dirty and pulling out her hair and male guards having sex with and performing strip searches on young female inmates.
Buss told Massee that the federal teams visited the Indianapolis facility before he took the agency's helm.
"They visited before I was commissioner. I believe the staff there were trying to do a good job, … but, I believe they were doing their best," he said.
The Indianapolis facility closed after the federal teams visited and the girls were moved to a newer facility in Madison in November 2009.
Buss called reports from former staff members that poor conditions continued after the move "ridiculous."
"It isn't a hardened correctional facility. It's on a beautiful campus it shares with the state hospital," Buss said.
He said the Department of Correction plans to hold a media tour of the facility.
Although the state no longer operates Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility, a Department of Justice representative said Friday that the agency's investigation into the center is ongoing.
The Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility is also currently being investigated by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. The findings related to that investigation have not yet been released.
"Sexting" Leads to Child Porn Charges for Teens
Distribution of Nude Photos among Teenagers via Cell Phone Catches Attention of Prosecutors, Principals in Pennsylvania
CBS News
June 5, 2010
This story is by CBS News Correspondent Michelle Miller and CBS News Producer Phil Hirschkorn
At Susquenita High School, 15 miles outside of Harrisburg, Pa., eight students, ranging in age from 13 to 17, have learned a tough lesson about "sexting."
"Take a photograph of yourself or somebody else nude and send it to somebody else, you've committed the crime," said Perry County District Attorney Charles Chenot, who has prosecuted two sexting cases involving a total of 10 minors in the past year.
Chenot said he considers sexting a form of child pornography and wants kids to understand once those images are in someone else's hands they could wind up anywhere, even the Internet, possibly forever.
The teens at Susquenita High, who all knew each other, were accused last fall of using their cell phones to take, send, or receive nude photos of each other and in one case a short video of a oral sex. That resulted in a felony pornography charge for each minor.
"That was the only charge that really fits what they were doing," said Chenot. "What would have been the best thing to charge would be something that would have been a little less severe but would still draw these teenagers' attention to the wrongness of their acts."
Former U.S. Rep. Don Bailey, a Harrisburg civil rights attorney, is skeptical.
"Should they be crimes at all?" Bailey asked. "This is an over-zealous and inappropriate application of the criminal law."
Bailey represents the lone student from Susquenita who has not pleaded guilty to lesser charges, which would require him to take a class on victimization and perform community service. After successfully completing the so-called "diversionary program" and a period of probation, those juvenile conviction records would be expunged, according to Chenot.
"Are you going to stop kids from sexting that way?" Bailey asked. "Maybe you should try talking to mom and dad."
At the state capitol in Harrisburg, freshman Rep. Seth Grove, R-York County, agrees.
"My view is kids should not be held under the same laws as child predators," Grove said.
His bill, which would limit the punishment for sexting, has passed the state House Judiciary Committee and is due for a full floor vote this month.
"What we're trying to do is say: 'Let's not charge a felony, let's get a common sense law together that charges a misdemeanor,'" Grove said.
Pennsylvania's proposed reform is typical of the 20 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, that have considered new sexting laws for minors during the past two years. Five states -- Arizona, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Vermont -- have already adopted changes.
"We need the appropriate punishment for the crime," Grove said.
But some advocates object that sexting, especially between teens who consent to exchange the images, is considered a crime in the first place.
"Why should we criminalize a kid for taking and possessing a photo of herself," said Marsha Levick, legal director of the non-profit Juvenile Law Center. "There is no problem that needs to be solved."
How schools find out about the nude photos has also provoked a debate with some child advocates complaining that schools are on shaky legal footing when it comes to searching students' cell phones.
A case in point pits a 19-year-old woman known as "NN" against Tunkhannock High School, her former school, near Scranton, Pa. She graduated last year.
"I took semi-nude pictures of myself and saved them into my phone," NN told CBS News in an exclusive interview.
When NN was still 17, a teacher confiscated her phone one morning because NN was talking on it before class. The school bans student cell phone usage on school grounds. Her principal, Gregory Ellsworth, then scrolled through the phone's digital photo album.
"He told me that he found explicit photos on my phone and that he sent it away to a crime lab," NN said. "I was really embarrassed, humiliated, because it was personal."
With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, NN sued the school last month seeking damages for invasion of privacy, accusing the school of violating her First Amendment right to free speech and her Fourth Amendment protection from illegal searches and seizure.
"A search of the device is akin to browsing through someone's address and appointment book, opening and reading letters sent by U.S. mail, and rummaging through a family photo album or viewing home videos," the lawsuit says.
Ellsworth had no comment. Michael Levin, an attorney for the school district, said, "I don't think any school district should tolerate kids bringing nude photos to school whether they be in electronic or paper format." Levin said Supreme Court rulings supported the school's actions.
Besides being suspended from school for three days, NN also faced child pornography charges from the Wyoming County District Attorney. To avoid them, she agreed to a deal, like seven of the Susquenita defendants, submitting to a five-week course on violence and victimization, meeting twice a week.
"If I was victimized, it was just like by my school," NN said. "I don't think by prosecuting them it's helping them at all."
But Chenot, the Perry County district attorney, said he is just trying to protect kids.
"Probably it's harmless when they take the pictures of each other and just share them between them, but the potential is there for there to be widespread distribution," said Chenot. "What we have here is a case where technology has gotten ahead of the laws."
Overdue Justice: Gov. Paterson's bill a strong start in fixing youth prison system
The Post-Standard - Online (NY)
June 6, 2010
Gov. David Paterson proposed bold legislation Wednesday that would begin to overhaul how New York treats children who break the law.
It’s about time. It’s been 9½ months since the U.S. Justice Department found that children sent to the state’s dysfunctional youth prisons got shoddy mental health care and were treated violently by guards. And it’s been 4½ months since the governor’s task force on juvenile justice issued recommendations to reform the entire system.
But the bill is only a first step.
Some of the money to convert the youth prisons to places where troubled kids can truly get the help they need is still stalled by wrangling over the state budget, now more than two months late. Will the money be there when the politicians finally agree on a spending plan?
The governor’s bill also will be subject to deal-making and haggling over details that affect one special interest or another. Will the legislation that emerges in the end be so watered down that it’s ineffective?
The governor’s bill creates an independent oversight body — the Office of the Juvenile Justice Advocate — to investigate and review systemwide issues in the youth prisons. The office would have subpoena power, could take sworn testimony and could compel cooperation by any other public agency. It could refer cases to law enforcement for criminal investigations. It could make recommendations and require the state Office of Children and Family Services, which runs the youth prisons, to fix any problems.
There are, however, flaws with the proposal. For one thing, the bill limits the new office to addressing systemic issues only. Would abuses occurring at just one prison escape detection?
And why even keep around OCFS’s Office of the Ombudsman, which is charged with looking out for kids in state custody? During interviews with the task force, ombudsman officials reported that budget and staffing constraints limited their ability to conduct regular prison visits.
The bill also provides that only children who have been convicted of crimes equivalent to violent felonies or sex offenses, or who have been found by a judge to pose a significant risk to public safety, may be placed in a youth prison. That would ensure that the vast majority of kids would be ordered to spend time in alternative programs near their communities, where they could get treatment for mental illnesses, substance abuse or other problems.
But although more judges are diverting kids to alternative programs, there is a shortage of qualified programs in some communities. The state needs to do a better job of developing the infrastructure of alternative programs that are capable of handling youngsters with complex problems that have resulted in prison placements.
Remaking the juvenile justice system is critically important. The task has been delayed for far too long. Is New York ready?
States closing youth prisons as arrests plunge
Associated Press (AP) – Wales Bureau (WI)
By TODD RICHMOND
June 7, 2010
WALES, Wis. — After struggling for years to treat young criminals in razor wire-ringed institutions, states across the country are quietly shuttering dozens of reformatories amid plunging juvenile arrests, softer treatment policies and bleak budgets.
In Ohio, the number of juvenile offenders has plummeted by nearly half over the last two years, pushing the state to close three facilities. California's closures include a youth institution near Los Angeles that operated for nearly 115 years. And one in Texas will finally go quiet after getting its start as a World War II-era training base.
The closures have juvenile advocates cheering.
"I can tell you it's the best thing they can do," said Aaron Kupchik, a University of Delaware criminologist. "Incarceration does nobody any good. You're taking away most of their chance for normal development."
Several factors have pushed states to close facilities. In stark contrast to the growing adult prison population, the number of juveniles in state lockups has dropped dramatically, partly because there are fewer juvenile arrests and more offenders in county-based treatment programs. States grappling with busted budgets can't afford to operate facilities with so many empty beds.
State reformatories are typically reserved for serious criminals, such as sex offenders and other violent offenders. Unlike the punishment-oriented adult system, juvenile justice focuses on rehabilitation.
During the early 1990s, though, tough-on-crime legislators turned to the juvenile system. Nearly every state lowered the minimum age for kids to be tried as adults or increased the kind of crimes that land kids in the adult system.
But juvenile arrest rates dropped, falling 33 percent between 1997 and 2008, according to the latest U.S. Justice Department data.
Criminologists aren't sure why fewer kids are getting in trouble. Some believe more kids are avoiding drug trafficking. Others think programs such as group homes, halfway houses and after-school tutoring closer to kids' homes have reduced recidivism.
"No fancy stats suggest this is a cure-all, but what I think you do see is the accumulation of those small results of people doing this increasingly in cities and towns all across the country," said Elliot Currie, a University of California-Irvine criminologist.
Those reforms have gained momentum as studies found teens sent to adult court often got in worse trouble after they were released and lawsuits emerged over poor conditions at state lockups. Many states have tweaked their juvenile polices so only the most serious offenders land in their systems.
"We're locking up the right kids," said Bart Lubow, program director for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which helps fund such juvenile offender programs. "It's about making smarter decisions."
As a result, the number of juveniles in state institutions has dropped. According to the Justice Department, the number of juvenile offenders declined 26 percent between 2000 and 2008, from about 109,000 to 80,000.
All the empty beds offer states struggling with budget deficits a way to save money — downsize juvenile justice systems.
The number of kids in state residential custody in California peaked at 10,000 in 1996 but now stands at 1,500, said state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Bill Sessa. The state has closed six institutions since 2003, most notably the Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility, which had operated just outside Los Angeles since 1890. State officials keep the institution clean for film crews; the paranormal research television series "The Othersiders" investigated reports of bangs and voices there in an episode last year.
The closings have generated as much as $40 million in savings for the state's juvenile justice department through job reductions, Sessa said.
In Texas, the state's residential juvenile population has dropped from 5,000 kids in 2007 to about 1,900 this spring, said Texas Youth Commission spokesman Jim Hurley. His state has closed three facilities since 2007 and plans to close two more. Hurley said it was unclear how much money that saved.
In Ohio, the state's residential youth population has fallen from about 1,730 kids as of mid-2008 to about 950 today. Its three closures over the last year should save about $40 million annually, according to juvenile corrections officials.
Some of the closed reformatories around the country will become adult prisons. Others are up for sale, like the one in Kansas that closed in 2008 saving the state $3.7 million.
In Wisconsin, state corrections officials are considering closing the Ethan Allen School, a former tuberculosis sanitarium near Wales, about 25 miles west of Milwaukee. The school's population has dropped from 460 in 1998 to 195 in May.
Since counties generally pay the state to house juvenile offenders from their area, the overall decrease in Wisconsin's jailed juvenile population has created a $25 million budget shortfall. Ethan Allen officials worry about what will happen if it closes, but they're trying to stay focused on their kids.
It was life as usual on a recent spring day at Ethan Allen. Sunshine sparkled on the concertina wire that topped the fence surrounding the sprawling campus.
In one class, social worker Melinda Aiken discussed emotion management.
"Why does it take courage to make a positive change?" Aiken asked.
"If you're scared," a boy replied, "you ain't never going to get anywhere."
Aiken nodded.
"It's going to take a lot of strength," she said. "You guys can do it. Tap into that."
Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems
Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown Public Policy Institute
By Pareesha Narang
June 7, 2010
Youths who go through both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems often leave school without the skills necessary for success in the 21st century, according to this report from the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. The authors contend that working across child welfare and juvenile justice systems to see determine what is being done to meet the educational needs of these students will be more effective in the delivery of youth services.
The authors recognize that these youths often have experienced a variety of risk factors such as adverse childhood experiences, poverty, emotional and behavioral disorders, learning disabilities and substance abuse that are associated with poor academic achievement, delinquency, recidivism, substance abuse and mental health issues. When combined, these risk factors prove to be harmful to youths, especially when they go from being state wards in child welfare to being incarcerated in the juvenile justice system without their problems being addressed, according to the report.
It identifies principles that should drive education reform for these youths, beginning with a sound early education and continuing with high-quality educational opportunities in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. The report also states that interagency collaboration is vital to improving outcomes for these youths.
The report explores educational and other outcomes of youth in both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems, barriers to improving education performance, recent legal and policy reforms, evidence-based interventions, emerging options and alternatives in considering both systems and how to put the aforementioned principles into practice.
Free, 74 pages. .
Opinion: The cost of locking up California's juveniles
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
By Sumayyah Waheed
June 8, 2010
California essentially gave up on Maria Santana's son when he was 15 years old and was locked up in the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) youth prisons. Initially told he would be released in four years, Maria's son has been languishing for nearly 10 years. With eight other children and recently made jobless, Maria can't afford to drive six hours to Ventura to visit him.
It costs approximately $200,000 per year to lock up a young person in DJJ. So what has the taxpayers' $2 million dollar investment in Maria's son brought him, his family or his community?
When his mom sees his resignation, his broken spirit and the scars on his body from rubber bullets, she knows that the state has failed him. He's certainly not the only one. Despite costing more than $436 million annually to warehouse only 1,300 youth, DJJ fails 72 percent of the time — meaning that 72 percent of the young people are rearrested soon after release.
We're paying $200,000 per youth per year for lockup in a violent, failed system. In comparison, a young person in a California public school merits only $7,100 per year for education. California adult prisons cost $8.2 billion, locking up 160,000 adults, but our public college system gets far less — $5.5 billion to educate more than 650,000 students.
The governor proposes teacher layoffs, health care cuts for infants and children and the end of in-home support for the elderly ill but wants to spend even more on adult and juvenile prisons. In the governor's slash-and-burn May budget revision, prisons received nearly $190 million in additional funding. That much money could rescind 3,000 teacher layoffs or restore thousands of kids kicked off state health insurance.
Schwarzenegger also proposed giving counties an additional $300 million to build local juvenile jails, without requiring them to work with the youth warehoused in the remote DJJ prisons. Across California, counties' existing juvenile facilities are actually underpopulated, so we don't need more concrete cots at the county level. We need a new vision for public safety and effective rehabilitation.
The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights has built a statewide network of over 1,500 family members of currently or formerly incarcerated youth. We stand with our family members in demanding that additional public safety spending be used on programs with a strong evidence base that provides education, counseling and support to the youth and their families. These programs are humane and proven to work.
Other states have learned to spend less on youth incarceration and get higher rates of success. New York, Missouri and Washington, among others, provide strong models for reform that California could imitate.
It's past time that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature got their priorities straight and invested wisely. The families of incarcerated youth say close the decrepit and dangerous DJJ prisons and invest in public education, children's health care, and effective rehabilitative services, so that Maria Santana's kids, my future kids and all of our kids will have the resources they need to keep them safe and the opportunities available to succeed.
SUMAYYAH WAHEED is the policy director for the Books Not Bars Campaign of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland. She wrote this article for this newspaper.
Legislators shoot down bill to clarify role of juvenile court
WAFB-TV (LA)
June 8, 2010
BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - A bill backed by the East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney's Office was shot down in a Senate committee on Tuesday. The measure was supposed to clarify the role of juvenile court in the most extreme criminal cases.
Michael Nichols was convicted of four counts of attempted murder after he shot three people at a Plank Road Rite Aid in 2008. If Nichols had filed for a sanity hearing in juvenile court when he was arrested, he could have avoided trial a bit longer under current law. A bill to fix that failed in a Senate committee.
"It would have meant that children, where there are serious questions about mental illness or mental disabilities, they would have been housed and received treatment if this bill would have passed," said Carol Kolinchak, legal director of Juvenile Justice.
District Attorney Hillar Moore said the defeat of the bill will cause his office a great deal of legal problems. He warned defense attorneys will file sanity hearings in juvenile court to clog up the process.
"It takes away my ability to prosecute timely and quickly," Moore said. "When these things come up in juvenile court, I can't go to a grand jury to indict them."
The bill cleared the House without a single objection. Senators Heitmeier, Jackson and Duplessis voted against it.
Juveniles are usually released to the custody of their parents or guardians, which is one reason Moore did not want juvenile court to evaluate these violent offenders.
‘Sexting’ legislation clears Senate committee
The Advocate (LA)
By MICHELLE MILLHOLLON
June 9, 2010
A state Senate committee advanced legislation Tuesday that would make “sexting” punishable by at least 10 days in jail.
“Oh, I love this bill…I want to be a coauthor,” said state Sen. Yvonne Dorsey, D-Baton Rouge and chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary C.
However, other committee members said they plan to amend House Bill 1357 on the Senate floor.
“This is a crime of immaturity, silly youth, and you’re criminalizing it,” said state Sen. Conrad Appel, R-Metairie.
HB1357 takes aim at an “indecent visual depiction” that is transmitted by anyone under the age of 17. The transmissions are referred to as sexting.
HB1357’s sponsor, state Rep. Damon Baldone, said the practice qualifies as child pornography.
He said he wants to give judges the authority to charge youths with a lesser crime of sexting.
HB1357 would create the crime of sexting and provide for the criminal penalties.
The law only would apply to minors, who would face a minimum $100 fine and up to 30 days in jail for possessing or transmitting “an indecent visual depiction.”
Lane McNulty, a recent Tulane Law School graduate, told the committee that he researched sexting as a class assignment.
“It’s usually immaturity,” he said.
Appel, who attended the committee meeting with his 13-year-old daughter, said he had a huge problem with the bill. He said government should not insert itself between a family and a school by passing laws against “sexting” and “cyberbullying.”
Appel said he would introduce an amendment on the Senate floor that stipulates “family, then the school and then government.”
State Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, said a distinction should be made for the age of the culprit. He said there is a difference between a second-grader sending an explicit message and an eleventh-grader sending one.
Crowe said the eleventh-grader should know better.
He said he planned to amend the bill on the Senate floor to provide for a distinction among age groups.
State Sen. Robert Adley, R-Benton, said he was bothered by the minimum sentence in the bill. He said he wants the judge to have a choice as to whether to impose jail time.
Baldone, who is a lawyer, said the judge can suspend the sentence.
Adley said some judges still may take the law literally and impose a sentence.
The committee agreed to amend the bill to more clearly make the jail sentence optional.
HB1357 now advances to the full Senate.
Opinion: Questioning how well juvenile justice system works
The San Bernardino Sun (CA)
By Matthew House
June 9, 2010
When a 16-year-old Apple Valley boy escaped from the Indio Juvenile Hall on May 9 and was shot by police the next day, it made me wonder how well the current juvenile justice system works.
While juvenile courts initially aimed to make society safer, the current trend seems to be to create the appearance of safety rather than achieving it.
The original juvenile court mission was clear: to help children in trouble.
As far back as 1847, John Augustus, a pioneer of juvenile probation, bailed 19 boys out of jail and checked in with the court periodically every few months to update the judge about the adolescents' progress. Before long, the boys were fully productive citizens, and the judge marveled at how well Augustus had rehabilitated those children. Rehabilitation works.
Around the turn of the 20th century, when juvenile courts were first founded in Chicago, Denver, and the cities to which the concept soon expanded, the existing system was ineffective at serving youth and keeping the community safe. A bold idea emerged as the framers of those original juvenile courts surmised, "If the current approach is not working, we need to do something different."
And they did. Rehabilitation replaced punishment, and treatment replaced incarceration. That paradigm shift ushered in a new era in which children were seen as vulnerable members of the community who needed help, not as criminals who deserved to be locked away.
That approach produced overwhelmingly positive results. Recidivism was practically zero, and the offenders' struggles became a thing of the past, rather than mistakes that would continue to brand them villains in a perpetual cycle of shame that gave them little incentive to change.
It would be tempting to assume that such a rehabilitative model meant allowing the offenders not to be held accountable for their actions, but exactly the opposite is true. Rehabilitation acknowledges that if society is truly looking out for its best interests and its long-term safety, working to prevent future criminal behavior is essential.
When a juvenile offender is reintegrated into the community after a year being counseled, treated, and taught, the community is safer than it would be if that same delinquent youth were incarcerated for five years and released with no preparation to respect himself and society and to avoid repeating the same behavior. In Missouri, for example, only 8 percent of juvenile delinquents return to the justice system within three years; the national average is over 50 percent.
As juvenile detention can cost over $60,000 per year, it is not surprising that incarceration is seven times more expensive than rehabilitation, in addition to being far less effective. Because today's system is not committed to rehabilitating youth, many teens scorn society even more than before they went into the "correctional" facility. Society is no safer if an escaped youth (or one released normally) re-enters society with no additional foundation to practice good values.
The founders of the original juvenile courts would be appalled to know that authorities today are locking up youth without rehabilitating them, and shooting them rather than helping them.
When he was shot, the Apple Valley teen, according to reports, was on a roof with no one else in proximity to him. Presumably, no one had been hurt, and no one was about to get hurt - unless, of course, you count the vulnerable youth who needed the cops' help rather than their bullets.
The juvenile justice system, by wandering away from its noble roots, is failing not only the youth it is supposed to serve but also the community whose safety continues to be in jeopardy.
Matthew M. House, the chief facilitator of Juvenile Justice Month in September 2010, is a divorce and family law mediator in private practice in Portland, Ore.
Editorial: Real Justice for Juveniles
The New York Times
June 11, 2010
Gov. David Paterson of New York has sent the Legislature a juvenile justice bill that would achieve two urgently important goals. It would improve the quality of the leadership and care in the state’s often dangerous and inhumane juvenile facilities. And it would ensure that only children who need to be institutionalized — because they present a risk to the public — end up in the facilities.
Albany’s lawmakers must finally stand up to unions that are more interested in preserving jobs than in doing what is best for children.
The argument for closing down the worst facilities and treating low-risk children in their home communities is irrefutable. In a report last year, the Justice Department found that young people in state detention facilities were frequently hit and abused; emotionally disturbed children rarely got the help they needed. Governor Paterson’s juvenile justice task force found that more than half the children sent to these facilities were guilty of minor, nonviolent infractions.
In addition to the emotional toll on young people, the cost of institutionalization is prohibitive: as much as $200,000 per child, per year. That is more than 10 times the cost of successful local programs that provide monitoring, guidance and help to troubled families.
Governor Paterson’s bill seeks to fix this broken system. It would create an independent office to investigate the state’s facilities and recommend ways to improve residential care. It would allow the state to seek out and hire the best qualified directors for juvenile facilities. Current law requires that they be chosen from the ranks of people who already work within the system.
Perhaps most important, it would seek to limit the number of children who are sent away. It would bar family court judges from placing young people in state facilities unless they have been convicted of violent felonies, sex offenses or are found to present a public safety risk.
Gladys Carrión, Governor Paterson’s, commissioner of the Office of Children and Family Services, is rightly committed to closing empty, unneeded facilities and is a strong advocate of community-based programs. More than a dozen have been closed in the last three years, for an estimated savings of about $30 million. There are still another 26 facilities that hold about 730 young people.
They employ around 1,900 people at an estimated annual cost of about $190 million.
By rights, the state should have used the $30 million it has already saved by closing facilities to help finance new community-based programs. It passed on only about $5 million, while the rest went into the general fund. It will have to put a lot more money into community programs for this new system to work.
The unions are already fighting the Carrión effort and will fight this bill, too. Governor Paterson and legislative leaders will need to push back even harder. New York cannot keep paying for a juvenile justice system that is so clearly failing.
[pic][pic][pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- pennsylvania department of education employment
- university of pennsylvania finance depart
- pennsylvania education certification test
- pennsylvania bureau of workers compe
- university of pennsylvania finance program
- pennsylvania department of education certification
- pennsylvania teacher certification website
- pennsylvania department of ed
- pennsylvania teacher licensure
- pennsylvania education department
- pennsylvania department of education website
- pennsylvania licensure board