Mainstream Film Highlights Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and Snitching

By Tosin Oyekoya

“Snitch,” a film released late last month, tells the story of a John Matthews, a father who goes undercover for the DEA in order to free his son who was imprisoned after a drug deal setup. Matthews, played by superstar Dwayne Johnson, was willing to go over and beyond to prevent his teenage son, Jason Collins, played by Rafi Gavron, from serving 10 years in prison under mandatory-sentencing laws for having made one unintelligent mistake. He ill-advisedly accepted delivery of a box full of ecstasy as a favor for a friend. The film displayed him as a good kid who lived in a suburban area. His parents were both hard workers; his father owned a shipping company.

This movie – based on a true story – addresses two issues within the criminal justice system. The first issue is mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory sentences are predetermined sentences for certain categories of offenses, mainly drug-related and gun-related crimes. Under this sentencing policy, people must serve a minimum number of years in prison. These laws are enacted by state legislators that require judges to give fixed prison terms to those convicted of specific crimes. These laws prevent judges from considering other relevant factors, such as the defendant’s role in the offense or likelihood of committing a future offense.

A first-time drug offender will get a 10-year mandatory minimum without chance of parole in the federal system which is what Jason in the movie faced. Mandatory minimum sentencing forces plea bargains out of the accused. The threat of a mandatory prison term means that some people arrested for relatively low-level drug offenses feel compelled to plead down and serve a prison sentence, even though the root cause of the offense may be low-level drug sales to sustain a habit, while treatment may be a more appropriate course. Another criticism of mandatory minimum sentencing is that it is too harsh. The crime committed is not worth the amount of years taken from the offender and further causes prison overcrowding, yet another issue.

Despite Juvenile Justice Reform Progress, Still Racial Disparity Work to Do

This blog post was originally posted on Reclaiming Futures' blog March 13, 2013 entitled "Two New Reports Show Juvenile Confinement Reform in Five States"


By Spike Bradford
In almost every state, youth of color are held in secure facilities at rates as high as four and a half times their percentage of the population. For example, in 2010, African-American youth made up 16.6 percent of the under 18 population. That same year they comprised 40.9 percent of incarcerated youth in the U.S, a disproportionality ratio of 2.46 to 1.
Just to be clear, this figure means that African-American youth are 2.46 times more likely to be incarcerated than we would expect if we used their percentage in the general population as a guide. And that’s just the national average. In 14 states in 2010, African-American youth were disproportionately represented in juvenile confinement by more than a factor of three. The issue has traditionally affected African-American youth but Latinos and other youth of color have begun to experience more juvenile justice system disproportionately in recent years.

JPI’s recent report released Feb. 27, Common Ground: Lessons learned from five states that reduced juvenile confinement by more than half, found that, despite falling youth confinement rates nationally, disproportionate incarceration remains a problem in most states. In fact, even amongst states that have lowered youth confinement by more than half, the disproportionality of incarcerated youth of color has gotten worse.
The problem isn't new or a surprise to politicians practitioners or advocates. It certainly isn’t news to confined youth of color whose cellmates are overwhelmingly various shades of brown. Disproportionality was mentioned in federal guidelines as early as 1988 in revisions to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (PDF).

So why haven't decades of well-intended efforts solved or at least lessened the problem? Most likely because the decision to confine or not confine a young person of color 1) cannot legally or ethically be based on their color, and 2) that decision is too late in the chain of decisions that led to the youth's justice system involvement.

In our American legal system there is no place for racially influenced decision-making (not to say it doesn’t exist). So the possibility of a mandate to incarcerate fewer youth of color upon adjudication is an impossible one. Even if tried, it would lead to cries of reverse discrimination. A judge must base their decision on other factors. Sadly, these other factors are ones for which youth of color are at a disadvantage. They come from communities and schools that are more likely to have a police presence, making prior citations or arrests more likely. Youth of color are more likely to be stopped for suspicion and less likely to be counseled and released than white youth. Youth of color who lack financial resources can’t afford legal representation, making pre-trial detention more likely which leads to a higher likelihood of adjudication (a guilty finding in the juvenile system) and incarceration. And it doesn’t stop there. Justice system involvement for youth increases the likelihood of adult justice involvement. Any level of involvement hurts families, communities, impacts educational attainment and burdens society.

• Executive summary of Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth
• Full report of Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth
• Full report Common Ground: Common Ground: Lessons Learned from Five States that Reduced Juvenile Confinement by More than Half

Spike Bradford is senior research associate for JPI.

International Women’s Day

By Tosin Oyekoya

International Women’s Day is a global day of celebration of women as well as a day of resistance to all forms of gendered violence, exploitation and oppression. Women living behind prison walls are denied many of the basic “rights and freedoms” that will be celebrated by women all over the world on this day. As if that is not enough, they are also forced to endure the violence that is throughout the prison system. For these women, International Women's Day should be a day to promote better treatment of women in prison worldwide and keep us ever mindful and vigilant in eliminating the injustices, violence and harm inflicted on women who pass through criminal justice systems.

Yesterday in Dallas, TX, groups representing criminal justice, civil liberties, policy, and faith organizations such as Texas Inmate Families Association and Human Rights and Grassroots Leadership, among others, gathered across the street from Dawson State Jail for a candlelight vigil to honor the women who have died while incarcerated at the jail.

“We were pleased with the turnout. It is not about how many people showed up,” said Kymberlie Charles, the national organizer of Grassroots Leadership.
Three women were honored at the vigil whose deaths could have been prevented had the correction officers at Dawson State Jail not ignored their pleas for help. Also honored at the vigil was a premature infant who lived only four days after being born in a toilet inside Dawson.  The baby’s mother requested a pregnancy test just three weeks before giving birth but was denied by prison staff.  The women, who died, along with the baby’s mother, were serving short-term sentences for non-violent offenses. When asked if this is going to be an annual event, Charles said “We hope not! Our point of this vigil is to get this place shut down.” Hopefully by next year this time, it will be closed.

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. 

Tools and Best Practices in Representing Indigent Youth

The National Juvenile Defender Center just finished a presentation on the role of counsel, from the newly released Juvenile Training Immersion Program (JTIP) and companion National Juvenile Defense Standards (Standards), at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Seventh Annual Models for Change Working Conference. This workshop was particularly exciting because it was the first time many juvenile justice stakeholders had the opportunity to see a part of these newly developed tools, which were over three years in the making.

Our audience was very interested in the hypothetical fact-pattern of a juvenile defender representing a 15-year-old boy charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine who admitted he hadn’t been totally “upfront” about the facts. A lively debate ensued about the defender’s ethical obligations, the attorney-client privilege, and confidentiality.

What made this session so unique was our threading the companion standard throughout the JTIP lesson, which in turn provided support for the practice skills learned in the lesson. In addition, the interactive and dynamic components through exercises, the hypothetical scenario, and other training tools were a big hit!

Effectively Addressing Mental Health Needs in the Juvenile Justice System

Adolescents can be impulsive and difficult to work with.  Most child-serving systems can agree as to the problematic behaviors but may take very different approaches in dealing with the youth.  At the 7th Annual Models for Change conference in Washington DC on December 3rd, 2012 (conference updates can be followed on Twitter using #Models4Change) we describe the Mental Health Training Curriculum for Juvenile Justice, a new training tool developed and tested by the Models for Change Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Action Network and the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (NCMHJJ).

The MHTC-JJ provides juvenile justice staff with basic information about adolescent development, mental health disorders common among youth in the juvenile justice system, child trauma and practical strategies for supervising and engaging these youth.  Rather than a traditional punishment model, the MHTC-JJ curriculum emphasizes developmentally-sensitive interactions and de-escalation techniques that can result in more appropriate responses from youth and in safer and more satisfying work conditions for staff.

After training all the participating Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Action Network states on the curriculum, the NCMHJJ, operated by Policy Research Inc., selected 10 additional sites to participate in a new training initiative designed to create sustainable mental health training capacity within state and local juvenile justice systems.  This effort, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, uses a Train the Trainer model to train juvenile detention and correctional trainers on this curriculum. 

Over 40 applications for this new training initiative were received from states and jurisdictions across the country, underscoring the critical need that exists within the juvenile justice field for mental health training and resources.

Changing Dynamics: Cops and Kids of Color

“As much as you don’t want me to stereotype you, I don’t want you to stereotype me and tell me I come running up and beat you upside the head because I don’t do that” Officer 2004 Youth-Law Enforcement Forum

“My mom told me to respect the cops, but you’ve got to give respect to get respect.”  Youth 2004 Youth-Law Enforcement Forum

“You might see a black person on the corner and you automatically assume he’s dealing but he might be an A student but you’ll never know and you will use the same way to handle the situation that you would use with someone who gave you lip. I just want to know why you all stereotype us" Youth, School Youth- Law Enforcement Forum 2006

The Philadelphia Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Working Group was formed  by the statewide DMC Subcommittee  in 2003 to address DMC in Philadelphia.  The Working Group included leaders from five branches of law enforcement, public defenders, prosecutors, community members and youth who shared a commitment to reduce the number of kids of color coming into the delinquent system.  Data showed that the greatest disparities occurred at the point of arrest, which became the initial focus of the group.

The first Minority Youth- Law Enforcement Forum was held in 2003.  The Forums bring youth from the community together with law enforcement for frank discussions about their experiences.  The Forums include a facilitated panel discussion between youth and officers, small groups that allow officers and youth to talk more informally and a shared lunch.  Both youth and officers who were part of the forums said that they changed their opinions about each other after the conversations.  Both groups recommended additional training for police about how to work with youth.

The Philadelphia DMC Youth-Law Enforcement Curriculum was created in 2009 and incorporates the Forums’ panel discussions, breakout groups and shared lunch.  The Curriculum also includes training on adolescent brain development, the effects of trauma, and role-play exercises to help officers and youth practice effective ways to interact with each other on the street.

The Forums and the Curriculum aim to improve the relationship between officers and youth thereby  reducing both volatile interactions on the street and the number of arrests of minority youth.  Over 700 police recruits have been trained with the curriculum in Philadelphia and the program has been used in Pittsburgh and Lancaster, PA.

Re-Forming Probation: New Perspectives on Old Practices

Having witnessed the juvenile justice system firsthand over the past 17 years, the faces of parents and youth flash through my memory each time I walk into the waiting room.  I cannot help reflecting on whether or not my efforts as a therapist had any impact on their lives while they were assigned to the Probation Department.  Making clear and meaningful connections between the lives we are entrusted with and the daily work we perform answers this vital question. 

At the 7thAnnual Models for Change National Working Conference today in Washington, D.C., Dr. John Ryals, Jr. and Matthew Villio highlighted a Models for Change probation reform initiative in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.  Moderated by John Tuell, participants performed an exercise designed to stimulate their ability to link probation officer activities to client outcomes.  The activity mirrored processes used in Jefferson Parish during the Implementation Phase and created connections between daily work of probation officers with changes in youths’ behaviors.  Dr. Ryals and Mr. Villio presented work products from the four-year-long Probation Review process.  Following the presentation, participants engaged in a discussion with the presenters regarding challenges and processes.  Significant milestones in the Probation Review process include a thorough assessment process, documented results and recommendations, development and implementation of a comprehensive work plan, and creation of a Probation Review Guidebook and implementation report.  The Models for Change Probation Review Guidebook can be found online and the implementation report, entitled “Performing a Probation Review: How Best Practices Meet Everyday Practices” can be obtained by e-mailing Dr. Ryals at JRyals(at)jeffparish(dot)net. 

Among the significant achievements were revised management practices, linking client outcomes to probation officer activities, improved screening and assessment procedures, development of a Parent Accountability policy, creation of a dedicated pre-disposition investigation unit, and shaping of an innovative process to effectively handle status offender cases.  The Probation Review was undertaken by National Resource Bank consultants John Tuell and Janet Wiig, Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps and National Resource Bank consultants, through the Models for Change initiative.

Updates for this and other Models for Change Conference sessions can be followed @Models4Change using #Models4Change on Twitter.

Involving Families in the Juvenile Justice System

We hope you join us at our workshop on Family Involvement in Juvenile Justice at the 7th Annual Model for Change Conference.  Susi Blackburn, and myself, Wendy Luckenbill, are offering participants the chance to catch up on the latest from Pennsylvania’s ground breaking family involvement (FI) work.  We are proud to share that Pennsylvania has emerged as a national leader in this area, under our Models for Change grant initiatives, and forward now under our PA Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy.  We will bring for conference participants’ review Pennsylvania’s most pragmatic FI contributions to date, a training curriculum for juvenile probation officers, and a A Family Guide to Pennsylvania's Juvenile Justice System. Both tools promote enhanced collaborative partnership between families and juvenile justice practitioners.   

These tools were developed by family advocacy leaders and juvenile justice practitioners, and are aligned with both the 2009 monograph, Family Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System, and the growing body of evidence based on probation practices, which are shifting to less intrusive, punitive practices, and which rely on family and community involvement for their optimum implementation.  

Participants will leave the workshop with samples of these tools, firsthand experience of the attitude shifting experiences the team has developed, and the opportunity to share innovative family involvement approaches they are supporting in their work. Presenters Susi Blackburn and Wendy Luckenbill have teamed with others on the  Family Involvement Committee  of the PA Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers since 2007.  We hope our products and the practitioner/family advocate teaming we (Susi and Wendy) bring to these efforts will inspire others to enhance their own family engagement and involvement efforts.

Youth Defy the Stigma of Incarceration

Photo by: Richard Ross

By Adwoa Masozi 

Four men were on the panel. Three of them were young, in either their late teens or freshly 20s, with faces that gave little hint of the stony roads they’ve traveled. The fourth man was the moderator; he, too, was young, but new-age young, you know, mid to upper 30s. Educated, credentialed, possessing a polished tongue and natural wit with the audience. All these men were African American, and playing out before me was the “nearly 1 in 3 Black men will spend time in prison in their lifetime” statistic referenced in Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow. I cringed at the realization, but more so at knowing it doesn’t have to -- and shouldn’t be this way.

“I didn’t know difference between my needs and my wants …” Michael Kemp, one of the youth presenters, said this of his mind set prior to the arrest that led to him being placed in an adult facility in the Midwest, further estranging him from his family and community. Of that experience he said, “…Coming out of prison leaves you feeling like you need to protect yourself. It puts you in a survival mode instead of getting yourself together.” The expressions of the other young men grew more solemn and they gave nods to Michael as he spoke. I think this is a truth that they all shared.

The panel took place during the First Annual Justice for Youth Summit, a conference organized by the Campaign for Youth Justice. The panel, “Straight from Us,” was aimed to give the three young men a platform to speak about their experience in the District of Columbia's juvenile justice system.  Since that experience, each of speakers have been able to turn their lives around through finding employment, and becoming peer-mentors and youth leaders in Free Minds Book Club and the FREE project, which offers tools to help justice-involved youth begin to understand and grow from their experience even before they leave prison. Michael and the two other youth presenters have made it their goal to inspire others to stay focused and commit to achieving their dreams in spite of the post-incarceration stigmas they bear in our society.

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.