Guest Post: A Silver Lining in the Juvenile Justice System

By Robert Valencia

The string of shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Oak Creek last year would make some reconsider establishing ‘stop-and-frisk’ policies in several violence-ridden U.S. cities. Most recently, an article by The Chicago Tribune’s Stephanie D. Neely on March 1, claimed that stop-and-frisk policies are needed in an attempt to curb gun violence in Chicago. According to Neely, 2,600 shooting incidents were reported to the Chicago Police Department, of which 400 resulted in homicide. In the wake of rampant violence, Neely claimed that:

“It's time for Chicago to be proactive and courageous. New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Pittsburgh and Kansas City have all had success cutting their rates of gun crime with a strategy called ‘stop-and-frisk.’ The idea is to target high gun-crime areas with increased patrols that specifically look for illegal guns. Police officers who are suspicious of a person are allowed to detain the person and lightly run their hands over the suspect's outer clothing to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.”

Neely went on to say:

“This is a plague on our city that requires a bold solution. Increased fines and longer prison sentences have never been much of a deterrent. These young men carrying illegal guns are bent on revenge with little thought to the consequences of their mayhem. Gun buybacks and other strategies recovered more than 70,000 guns in Chicago over the last five years, and yet our homicide total last year was higher than that of New York and Los Angeles, according to crime data.”

Neely’s conclusion proposes that stop-and-frisk is the only viable strategy “not because I like it or don't recognize the larger social problems at play, but because we must solve this problem now and I have seen no other solution that works. The price of doing nothing is more dead young people.” Research shows that, unfortunately, the implementation of stop-and-frisk doesn’t help reduce crime or save lives. Instead, it leads to the racial profiling and criminalization of Latino and Black individuals -- particularly the youth. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, stop-and-frisk policies have led to illegal stops, the violation of privacy rights, and racial profiling. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New York residents are innocent, according to New York Police Department accounts.

Common Ground

Today’s post is reposted from the Youth Transition Funders Group blog, Connected by 25 Blog.

By Zerline Hughes
 

It’s not often that individuals, organizations or politicians are on the same page. It’s hard finding common ground in today’s society that brings debate on civil rights, human rights and the right components for kids’ healthy upbringing, deterrence from “at-risk” behavior, and dealing with the aftermath of kids who become part of the U.S. criminal justice system.  

Luckily, for our nation’s youth, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and Tow Foundation, have recognized the urgency and need to protect our children, even if they end up in youth detention centers. Each organization supports initiatives aimed at the work their grantees – like us at the Justice Policy Institute –are committed to in an effort to ensure better and lasting outcomes for justice-involved youth. 

Three reports were released on Wednesday, February 27, that delve into the dramatic, positive reforms that have occurred over the last three decades throughout juvenile justice systems across the country. The Casey KIDS COUNT report, released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation offers a data snapshot showing state-by-state youth incarceration rates for the last 38 years. The research in the two reports we penned:  “Common Ground: Lessons Learned from Five States that Reduced Juvenile Confinement by More than Half” and “Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth” identifies the trend toward reduced use of confinement among youth in Connecticut, Minnesota, Arizona, Tennessee and Louisiana. Additionally, they provide context for these significant reforms and offer lessons to reformers in other jurisdictions can adapt and use in their own communities.

Connecticut and Illinois Release Pivotal Juvenile Justice Reports

By the Campaign for Youth Justice

This week the Justice Policy Institute released a report entitled, “Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Improved Outcomes for Youth,” and the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission released its report entitled, “Raising the Age of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction: The future of 17-year-olds in Illinois’ justice system.” Conclusions from both reports support the notion that raising the age is consistent with legal trends, is consistent with adolescent development and behavior; is an efficient use of juvenile court resources; improves public safety; and decreases long-term costs. 

The positive effects of these reforms have far exceeded expectations thereby debunking the myth that placing more 16 and 17 year olds in the juvenile justice system will “crash it” and sacrifice public safety. The impact of reforms in Connecticut and Illinois prove that thoughtful analysis and long term planning can create positive legislative reforms in systems deemed too dysfunctional for repair.

The "Drug War" Tide is Changing

By Spike Bradford

A story on NPR’s "Morning Edition" today, examined the lasting negative consequences of the Rockefeller Drug Laws of 1973. These laws, as well as President Nixon’s “war on drugs” and a growing public and political perception of a drug-crime epidemic were the main contributors to our current 2 million-plus prison population; the highest in the world. 

According to the story, non-violent drug offenders “make up 48 percent of the inmate population in federal prisons,” thanks to these lingering failed policies. Luckily, the tide is changing, as evidenced by the NPR story and others like it.

Background on Rockefeller as told by NPR: New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller had been a champion of drug rehabilitation, job training and housing. Then, he did a dramatic about-face and backed strict sentences for low-level criminals. Click here to listen to the NPR broadcast.

For more information on the "war on drugs" and JPI's take on U.S. drug policy, click here.

More than Flowers & Chocolates: How Significant Others and Confined Youth 'Celebrate' Valentine's Day

By Tosin Oyekoya

“It’s hard to explain,” says Maria. “My husband has been in prison for so long, but in a way it’s gone by in the blink of an eye. When you make the decision to stay together, you learn to live this way.”

Every year, millions of people arrange special dates and purchase heartfelt gifts for their loved ones for Valentine’s Day. While that is going on, there are millions who are miserable around this time of the year. Not particularly because they are single or feel lonely, but because their significant other is incarcerated.

While the average person may not think about how people “on the inside” celebrate – or don’t celebrate – holidays like Valentine’s Day or Christmas, several advocacy organizations are quite aware and make efforts for families to reach out to their loved ones during special times. Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a nonprofit membership organization working for fair and proportionate sentencing laws, is one of them. Four Massachusetts FAMM members shared special messages that help remind society of the power of love and family. Maria was one of the members, and so is Perla. Perla’s husband is serving the first year of a 10-year sentence.

“There was never any question that we’d stay married,” wrote Perla. “We’ve been together for eight years and he is a good husband and father.” Read the full length articles on FAMM’s website.

Response to President Obama’s Comprehensive School Safety Program

By Tosin Oyekoya

The tragedy of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut left a great amount of pressure on policy makers. Many people were anxious to see how they would respond. Unfortunately their solution, which was announced January 16^th 2013, to this issue is ineffective.  President Obama wants to place 1,000 more school resource officers and counselors in schools nationwide. This motion has caused a national debate of whether schools should have armed guards. In Alabama, they are considering arming teachers, which is unnecessary, and many schools have already installed School Resource Officers in their schools, like DuPont Tyler Middle School in Tennessee, Pender’s county’s high school and middle school located in North Carolina, and a few Maryland schools.
 

It is great to see that President Obama and other policy makers’ care and is putting effort into protecting children from harm, but in the long run, this plan will be fruitless. Increasing armed police presence in schools is not healthy. It will not be a productive learning environment. This failed solution, will scare the kids and cause lasting harm. There is evidence and research from the Justice Policy Institute’s report titled Education Under Arrest supporting this.  JPI provides evidence that police in schools have not been shown to make schools safer and that they negatively affect youth by putting many of them unnecessarily into the justice system and interrupting the educational process.

A Critical Look at the Violence Prevention Initiative

By Henry Loyer

The Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI) is a zero tolerance parole policy adopted in Maryland in 2007 by Governor O’Malley’s administration.  The administration’s stated goal for VPI is: “To identify that relatively small core group of offenders who are most likely to engage in violent crime, and to develop a containment model to effectively manage and supervise those offenders in a community-based setting.” However the reality of the program is far less tame than this description suggests.  VPI over incorporates Maryland residents, over punishes people enrolled in it, and over exaggerates its success.

To identify that relatively small core group of offenders who are most likely to engage in violent crime

The exact mechanism by which people on parole are enrolled into VPI is not very transparent, there are no statistics, and no specific criteria available.  However, the Maryland Crime Prevention Plan does give the general criteria: “Any offender under DPP supervision who is: 1) Under 29 years of age; 2) Has 7 or more arrests and: 3) Is currently under supervision for Felony Drug Offenses, Armed Robbery, Carjacking, Felony Assault, Handgun Violations, Kidnapping or Murder is automatically assigned to the Violence Prevention Unit within DPP.” The plan does not say whether one, all, or some of these conditions is sufficient. And the outside source, Findlaw, claims that officer recommendation is a factor for VPI selection as well. What is clear though is that “the small core of offenders” enrolled in VPI is anything but small. 2010 saw 2,369 persons on parole selected for VPI.  According to the O’Malley administration this program is responsible for the drop in murders from 2007 to 2010, even if we interpret the numbers here charitably VPI prevented 59 murders in 2010.