Rhetoric or Results?: Juvenile Justice Reform in the Last 10 Years

By Angela Watson

It’s no secret that youth between the ages of 10-17 aren’t always the best decision makers (neither are adults for that matter … but that’s a different conversation). However, our juvenile justice system doesn’t seem to reflect such truth. In fact, more often than not our juvenile justice system treats youth, who are still coming of age and finding their way in the world, as if they don’t deserve the proper and attention and care necessary to aid them in the process of becoming productive adults. Steadily since the 1960s, the idea and rhetoric of the “juvenile justice system” has faded.
The result is that the current “juvenile justice system” has been converted into a junior version of the adult criminal justice system. Without going too far into the ills of our criminal justice system, propelling children into such a barbaric system is nothing short of appalling. And it’s worth mentioning that it costs taxpayers an arm and a leg to support the juvenile justice leg of the prison industrial complex. Unfortunately, for our nation’s youth, our nation’s future, an over dependency on mass incarceration doesn’t leave a bright outlook on what is to come for our nation’s citizens as a whole.

It wouldn’t be fair to attempt a discussion on this topic without giving recognition to the multitude of reforms that the juvenile justice system has attempted to implement over the past 10 years to rectify the virtual attack on our nation’s youth. Certain states and localities have made major differences while others continue on the path of converting misguided children into institutionalized “delinquents” and eventually, but not too soon thereafter, institutionalized adults.

Dismantling the Cradle to Prison Pipeline

By Diana Auborg Millner

The Children's Defense Fund released the State of America's Children 2012 Handbook [in August], an annual compilation of national data on child well-being, as well as its Portrait of Inequality which focuses on the state of the most vulnerable black and Latino children and youth in America. While the snapshots are sobering for both populations, the report on black children outlines a stunning set of statistics that paint the contours of CDF's theory: that black children are fed into a "Cradle to Prison Pipeline" at higher rates than any other group.

Image from Fairness Works

There is quite a bit of work that has been done on the school-to-prison pipeline - a confluence of forces, including zero tolerance policies that push disadvantaged children out of school and in into the criminal justice system. CDF's Cradle to Prison theory argues that black children and youth not only face multiple risks, but that from birth and throughout childhood and adolescence, confront debilitating obstacles that often push them into premature death, prison, and failed lives. Some black children face an entire childhood of hardship and stressors that many adults could not withstand, and ultimately fall into an "abyss of poverty, hunger, homelessness and despair."

Hmm, you might think, could they be overstating this? You may even consider black children that you know who have overcome tremendous odds and achieved success - proving that some can climb their way out of the morass of disadvantage that so easily entangles. However, CDF's report is not a collection of assertions, but rather a fact-based siren warning that an unacceptably high percentage of black children will meet this fate if adults (you and me) don't figure out how to fix things.

Baltimore: How a Broken Bail System Leads to High Incarceration Rates and Costs

By Inimai M. Chettiar

This blog post was originally posted to the Brennan Center for Justice blog on September 26 during JPI Bail Month.

Today, the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) released the third in its series of reports highlighting the nation’s broken pretrial incarceration and bail system. The report, titled Bailing on Baltimore, Voices from the Front Line of the Justice System, focuses on Baltimore, Md., as an example. The selection of the Baltimore City Jail, one of the 20 largest in the country, was deliberate. It is one of the few jails that keeps data on those incarcerated and their bail amounts.

Like most counties, Baltimore’s bail system relies almost entirely on “money bail,” meaning the accused need to pay to gain their freedom before adjudication. Remember, these people are only accused of a crime, the state has yet to prove its case and they are, as a legal matter, innocent. Nonetheless, their continued liberty is dependent on their bank balance. Although bail commissioners in Baltimore have the power to release defendants on their own recognizance, this option is rarely chosen. In fact, there is almost never an assessment of the effect of pre-trial incarceration on the defendant, their ties to the community, and the likelihood they may commit another crime if released. It is a simple monetary decision. Either pay the price that is set (based on the accusation and a previous record, if any), or go to jail. Equally disheartening is that a majority – 61 percent – of all defendants are not even offered the money option in the first place. They are incarcerated straight away. In addition to considerations of fairness and justice, this is also a rotten deal for taxpayers and government budgets. An incarcerated person is prevented from contributing productively to the economy or society, and the government must pay for their incarceration and day-to-day needs. Such a system has little economic grounding.

What is the Purpose of Bail?

By Jean Chung

Let’s clear something up right away: Bail and money bail are not the same thing. Bail refers to any condition of pretrial release. Lots of conditions of release have nothing to do with money; supervision and monitoring, for instance. It’s money bail, specifically, that requires someone to pay an amount of money to get released pretrial, making a person’s financial resources a determining factor in whether or not that person sits in jail.

 

The bail system in Baltimore relies almost exclusively on money bail. Last spring, I interviewed 13experts on the Baltimore bail system, and I asked all of them the following question:

What is the purpose of bail?

What I heard over and over again was this: Bail is supposed to do two things. One: make sure that someone comes back to court for their trial. Two: protect public safety.

Wait a second. How does a system that relies on money bail protect public safety? Money bail doesn’t keep violent people locked up; it just keeps poor people locked up. People who may pose a threat to public safety can still get out of jail; they just need to have the money to do it.

And that’s just one of many problems when it comes to bail in Baltimore.

Bail Bond Companies Profit While Poorest Defendants Remain in Jail

By David M. Reutter and Mel Motel

As America’s prison population has swelled over the past three decades to become the largest per capita in the world, the number of special interests that feed off the prison industrial complex has grown. The expansion of companies that benefit from crime and incarceration is no accident; it is the result of extensive lobbying by businesses that profit from other people’s misfortune – primarily the misfortune of the poor, who are vastly overrepresented in our nation’s prisons and jails.

Often overlooked among the special interests that profit from the criminal justice system in the U.S. is an industry that portrays itself as one dedicated to helping people get out of jail. In actuality, though, it is involved in keeping people incarcerated in order to protect its bottom line.

Just 20 years ago in most jurisdictions nationwide, the services of bail bondsmen were only required by defendants who had a high bond set by the court, which typically occurred in cases involving serious crimes or repeat offenders. Most defendants were released through publicly-funded pretrial services that granted release on personal recognizance based on a promise to appear at future court dates.

Currently only Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon and Wisconsin prohibit commercial bail bondsmen. Other jurisdictions have laws that allow, and sometimes encourage, the use of bail bond companies. This expansion of the bonding industry has contributed to high jail populations.

Reform Effort on a Century of For-Profit Bail Bonding

By Spike Bradford

1912 San Franciso Call article
lamenting corruption in for-profit
bail bonding.



As part of the JPI team working on a series of reports about money bail, for-profit bail bonding and the bail and pretrial experience in Baltimore jails, I have been researching bail bonding in the U.S. Much of what I’ve learned has been surprising and eye-opening, but no aspect has been as shocking as the history of bail bonding reform. Or, I should say, lack thereof.

For-profit bail bonding, the practice of paying a third party to guarantee your future appearance at trial for a crime you have been accused of, was established in the U.S. just before the end of the nineteenth century. It was the brainchild of the McDonough brothers, San Francisco organized crime bosses who would bail out bookmakers and prostitutes to get them back to work as quickly as possible. From the beginning, the trade was one of disrepute.

During for-profit bail’s century-plus history, it has undergone periods of reform driven primarily by the facts that it discriminates against poor people, erodes public safety and is prone to corruption. In fact, corruption in for-profit bail bonding has been so pervasive that four states --Wisconsin, Kentucky, Oregon and Illinois -- as well as numerous other jurisdictions, have outlawed or heavily discouraged the practice. 

I recently came across an old newspaper article from the March 18, 1912 San Francisco Call, in which police and court leaders vowed to “clear out bail bond evil” and the “shysters” who engaged in it. The “evil” behavior mentioned in the article --dated 100 years ago -- is virtually identical to behavior that can be found today just by searching for "bail bonding corruption." 

For the Love of Money Bail: There’s No Science to It

By Dr. Melissa Neal

In my careful investigation into the use of money bail, one of the most striking things I encountered was the blatant lack of research supporting this practice. The use of money bail is so accepted in our society that it has taken a place in our general nomenclature.  It’s part of jokes we make about going out and having a good time – “bring your bail money."  It’s part of our fundraising campaigns – “Bail our Executive Director/Principal/Fire Chief out of jail with a contribution!”

Yet, the lack of research supporting the effectiveness of money bail was remarkable. While the majority of U.S. jurisdictions depend on money bail as a primary way of releasing people from jail while they await trial, the evidence supporting its use is severely lacking. It appears intuitive that posting money would compel compliance in attending court hearings and not being re-arrested, however, little research has been done to confirm this and it is usually supported anecdotally.

Now, with the use of bail schedules, monetary amounts for specific offenses are standardized in many places. Yet, once again, there is no evidence that one sum of money for an offense will better produce pretrial compliance over another sum. There is no empirical evidence showing which amounts of money bail are appropriate for certain types of offenses. Rather, we see bail schedules bolstering the rise in money bail amounts and often having very little relationship to the actual cost of loss or damage caused by the offense.  For certain offenses such as rape or murder, could we ever begin to suggest a monetary amount to be appropriate for those types of violations?

Bail Fail Highlights Broken System

By Thomas Giovanni, Brennan Center for Justice
This post was originally published 9/11/12 on the Brennan Center for Justice blog as part of JPI Bail Month.

Today, the Justice Policy Institute released the first of three important reports regarding bail. The report highlights the consequences of a system dependent upon an accused person’s ability to pay. It is important to remember that people subjected to this system are considered innocent according to the law. Yet, they are penalized nonetheless. JPI, a national non-profit organization, offers new data and provides recommendations for practical reform.

Entitled Bail Fail, the study highlights how, in conjunction with the large-scale, fast-paced, assembly line nature of the criminal justice system, the bail system creates a reality where the outcome of a criminal case depends less on the facts of the case and more on the finances of the person charged. In the criminal justice system, 80 percent of the accused are too poor to afford an attorney, more than 60 percent are people of color, and the bulk of the cases are low-level, non-violent offenses. Most of this population cannot afford bail and are incarcerated before trial for long periods even though they have not been found responsible for any crime. Bail Fail notes “60 percent of the jail population is not convicted but being held pretrial,” and that “this issue is a huge contributor to the mass incarceration of people in the United States, resulting in overcrowded facilities and unsustainable budgets.” The report further points out that “those too poor to pay a money bail remain in jail regardless of their risk level or presumed innocence . . . U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in 2011 stated that keeping people awaiting court dates in county jails costs around $9 billion each year.” That amount is roughly equivalent to the annual budget for the Environmental Protection Agency.

September is JPI Bail Month

This month, JPI is dedicating all of its resources to educating the public on bail. Some of us know the issue well, but many of us don’t realize that using money as a pretrial release mechanism contributes to jails overcrowded with unconvicted people, burdens low-income communities and supports an ineffective for-profit industry. 

Despite a lack of evidence that financial release options improve pretrial outcomes, jurisdictions throughout the country continue to rely on money as a proxy for risk in the pretrial process. This approach weakens public safety and creates two criminal justice systems: one for those with money and one for those without. The for-profit bail bonding industry, a corporate insurance behemoth that profits off the inequitable bail system, has enjoyed over 100 years of corruption and political influence and continues to skew judicial decision-making and put profit before public safety. 

Solitary Confinement Comes to Washington

Mock solitary cell on display during the Capitol Hill hearing.

By Sal Rodriguez

“Solitary confinement does one thing, it breaks a man's will to live and he ends up deteriorating,” testified Texas death row exoneree Anthony Graves, before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Tuesday. The hearing, convened by Subcommittee chair Senator Richard Durbin, was the first of its kind at the federal level on the issue of solitary confinement.

For over 18 years, Graves spent 22 to 24 hours in an 8-by-12 foot cell, with a steel bed, small desk, toilet and a small window. Inside the hearing room was a replica of such a cell that approximates the living conditions of over 80,000 incarcerated individuals. Psychologist Craig Haney testified that “the cells themselves are often scarcely larger than the size of a king sized bed. Prisoners thus eat, sleep, and defecate each day in areas just a few feet apart from one another.”

It’s a nightmare scenario I’ve read about for the past year in my work on this issue for Solitary Watch. Again and again, I have received letters from individuals held in isolation units across the country, sometimes for 10, 20, and 30 years describing terrible psychological pain. One individual, isolated for over five years, described daily life as consisting of “reading, writing, crying and begging for death.”

Let's Give Kids Better Mental Health

By Melissa Neal, DrPH

“People are just not reaching us where we are at.  We want to be reached.” – Washington, D.C. focus group youth participant.

The mental well-being of our youth is crucial to achieving progress and prosperity in our communities. In Washington, DC, youth face particular challenges as disparities in resources and risks vary drastically in just a matter of miles. I wrote JPI’s report, Mindful of the Consequences: Improving the Mental Health for DC’s Youth Benefits the District, to show that current prevention and treatment services do not match the level of need and many youth are at risk for contact with the justice system due to untreated mental problems. To illustrate this, I mapped where arrested youth are coming from: predominately areas of low income and high rates of risk factors that impact mental well-being.

Why Are We Spending So Much To Lock Up Elderly Prisoners Who Pose Little Threat?

This submission was originally posted June 13, 2012 on the American Constitution Society blog. 

By Inimai M. Chettiar and Vanita Gupta

Elderly prisoners are the least dangerous group of people behind bars but the most expensive to incarcerate. Yet despite this truth, the number of elderly prisoners is skyrocketing. Harsher sentences for less serious crimes – one defining characteristic of our failed “tough on crime” and “war on drugs” policies – are responsible for this staggering increase in the number of older prisoners, and taxpayers are taking the hit.

You may be shocked to learn how much money states are dumping into housing aging prisoners who pose little safety risk. Today the American Civil Liberties Union released a report, “At America’s Expense: The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly,” which details the growth of our aging prisoner population, the low public safety threat elderly prisoners pose and the fiscal impact of incarcerating them. Strikingly, the report estimates that the average aging prisoner costs taxpayers about twice as much as the average prisoner.

Bi-Partisan Criminal Reform Efforts Take Root in Maryland

By Mellisa Coretz Goemann

While there may be gridlock in Congress, bipartisanship can still be found in many states, including Maryland. Two weeks ago, Governor Martin O’Malley signed the Earned Compliance Credit and Reinvestment Act of 2012 (HB 670/SB 691) into law.  Sponsored by Del. Michael Hough (R-Frederick and Washington Counties) and Senator Christopher Shank (R-Washington County), the bill had broad bi-partisan support among legislators and activists, which included the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, the Justice Policy Institute, and the American Legislative and Exchange Council.

What the Earned Compliance Credit Act does is to extend the concept of “good time credits” beyond those currently incarcerated to those individuals on probation and parole. While incarcerated, people earn credit for good behavior, which encourages such behavior and expedites their release. Increasingly, states such as Maryland are expanding this concept to provide earned compliance credits for individuals on parole or probation. These programs have proven to be a win-win for both public safety and the state coffers, which helps to create bipartisan support.

Arresting Development

Retired Police Chief David Couper reached out to JPI following the release of “Rethinking the Blues: How we police in the U.S. and at what cost.”  As a law enforcement trainer and writer on policing, Chief Couper shared with us his thoughts on what’s needed to improve law enforcement efforts in the U.S.

I have been a member of the clergy for almost 20 years. Prior to that, I was chief of the Madison (Wisc.) Police Department. At the time I retired, we were acclaimed as one of the best police departments in the nation and that year I received the national police leadership award from the Police Executive Research Forum. But I couldn’t stop myself from thinking about police on a national basis as my interest in peace and justice went beyond Madison and into the world.

Guest Post: Starting Out in the Criminal Justice Field

It’s college graduation season and new graduates are ready to tackle our teetering job market. For many college students, a job in the criminal justice field is an attractive career choice; certain specialties in particular continue to grow. For example, interest in forensics, computer security and homeland security seems ever expanding. A 2011 article in U.S. News even names homeland security as one of nine "hot college majors" with over 300 programs created in the field since 9/11. How is the criminal justice field changing, though, and what do these changes mean for students?

Those looking to start out in criminal justice today will likely face a different landscape than the criminal justice professionals before them, with different requirements and expectations. Four-year bachelor’s programs in criminal justice and even Master’s degrees are becoming more and more common as students look to secure positions in the criminal justice field. Those already working in the field are seeing an increased emphasis on evidence-based practice, community-based corrections and technology.

Working for a Better Future: Improving Public Safety by Employing Youth

By Spike Bradford

In Washington, D.C., a robust and holistic employment program for youth is key to building positive life outcomes for the District’s youth and creating safer communities. In our most recent research brief, Working for a Better Future: How expanding employment opportunities for D.C.’s youth creates public safety benefits for all residents, the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) describes how youth unemployment in D.C. ranges between 1.6 and 2.3 times the national average and how increases in youth employment rates have been linked to decreased rates of arrest in the city.

Having a job has been shown to be a “protective factor” against crime and arrests for youth. Jobs help young people gain experience in the work world and effective job assistance programs provide youth with mentoring, life skills training, and a connection to their community.

Keeping the Focus on the Victims

By Keith Wallington

April 22 is a very important week as it recognizes victims from all over the country. This week also serves as a reminder that too many times we ignore the real needs and concerns of victims in a rush to advance other agendas. In order to truly recognize victims we need to invest in the needs and concerns of victims to help them heal from whatever ordeal they have experienced. In many cases, victims simply want to be recognized by the justice system and not utilized. Despite a growth in victim involvement since the early 1980s, research has shown that victims may not believe that justice has been served in their case, and may be left feeling re-victimized by the process. Additionally, there has been a propensity by those on the left to use victims to achieve a less retributive justice system and by those on the right to use victims to promote a more retributive justice system; both with damaging effects on the system.

Guest Post: Faith Leaders Opposed to Prison Privatization

By Dr. Iva Carruthers

Several months ago I was blessed to meet a young man, Marcus, whose story is not unlike so many young African American young men who find themselves on the other side of a prison cell.

Marcus lived a challenging life, made some bad choices and was convicted of a non-violent drug possession charge. What makes his story different is that he found a new way forward. Just before his release on parole, Marcus was connected to a mentorship program that encouraged artists who were incarcerated. This mentorship program was created by one faithful person who takes seriously the charge to “Remember those who are in prison, as though you were there in prison with them…” (Hebrews 13:3).

To Be Free at Last with Michelle Alexander

By Zerline Hughes

Earlier this year, I had the honor of attending the annual convening of the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference an event that brings together instrumental faith leaders from around the country in an effort to come to one accord on how to bring together congregations and communities to address the various causes that need their advocacy and attention.

The Justice Policy Institute’s involvement with the Proctor Conference stemmed from an invitation from New York Times bestselling author, Michelle Alexander. She is working with the SDPC on its To Be Free at Last movement, a national campaign to end mass incarceration. Alexander’s bestseller, “The New Jim Crow: Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” has rallied varied communities, -- scholars, practitioners, faith based and grassroots organizations and the families of those incarcerated – to seriously tackle the ills of our criminal justice system.

Election time: Vote to Send JPI to Netroots Nation!

By Zerline Hughes

I guess I’m officially a blogger. JPI has a blog. I write for it every now and again. That makes me a blogger. Wow! Who’d have thought!

So, why not try out for a scholarship sponsored by Democracy for America and America's Voice to attend the NetRoots Nation Conference for bloggers. I AM a blogger, aren’t I? My boss nominated me (it’s an honor just to be considered), and now all I need is your vote!