Campaign for Youth Justice Releases New Report - State Trends: Legislative Victories 2011-2013

Just Policy Blog repost by the Campaign for Youth Justice originally posted on October 10, 2013.


By Carmen Daugherty

Today the Campaign releases its newest report: State Trends Legislative Victories from2011-2013 Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System. 

State Trends documents the achievements of the past eight years in which twenty three states enacted forty pieces of legislation to reduce the prosecution of youth in adult criminal courts and end the placement of youth in adult jails and prisons. October is the perfect month to highlight these state victories by releasing our newest publication during Youth Justice Awareness Month.

State Trends documents the continuation of four trends in justice reform efforts across the country.  In the last eight years the following progress was made:

• Trend 1: Eleven states (Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, Hawaii, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oregon and Ohio) have passed laws limiting states’ authority to house youth in adult jails and prisons.
• Trend 2: Four states (Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, and Massachusetts) have expanded their juvenile court jurisdiction so that older youth who previously would be automatically tried as adults are not prosecuted in adult criminal court.
• Trend 3: Twelve states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Ohio, Maryland and Nevada) have changed their transfer laws making it more likely that youth will stay in the juvenile justice system.
• Trend 4: Eight states (California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and Washington) have changed their mandatory minimum sentencing laws to take into account the developmental differences between youth and adults, allow for post-sentence review for youth facing juvenile life without parole or other sentencing reform for youth sentenced as adults.

Substantial Progress Thanks to Collaboration and Risk Assessment ​

Just Policy Blog Guest Post as part of Pretrial Justice Institute and Justice Policy Institute Bail Month 2013. This post was originally posted Monday, September 23, 2013 by the Pretrial Justice Institute.


By John Chisholm, Milwaukee County District Attorney

Every prosecutor’s office in the country shares common challenges, regardless of size and population demographics. Prosecutors also share a set of core values grounded in protecting the public, holding offenders accountable and maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system. I fundamentally believe that what prosecutors do on a daily basis makes communities better, but it is very easy to become consumed and defined by what happens inside the courthouse walls.  How we do the work of prosecutors does matter, and a growing body of research shows that the decisions we make concerning how we hold offenders accountable can play a significant role in stabilizing individuals, families and communities by changing the behavior that leads to repeated criminal acts.

In deciding what to do with any individual contacting the justice system, prosecutors naturally try to obtain as much information and evidence as possible concerning the alleged crime, the prior criminal history of the defendant and the harm done to the victim or community. Historically, we have not been objectively well informed about the risk that the person poses to commit new offenses. Sure, we use our professional judgment and institutional experience to approximate risk, but only recently have we started examining whether our assumptions are supported by the outcome we desire: is an offender changed by the encounter? Does he or she stop committing crimes?

In this context, two Wisconsin counties, Milwaukee and Eau Claire, have committed to developing a framework that places risk assessment at the forefront of our decision making process. Working with experts in pretrial justice services, we developed validated risk assessment tools that we apply to everyone coming into our jail. The objective is to have actuarial information that helps better inform decisions on what we do or do not charge, what kind of bail conditions are set and what kind of intervention resources we apply early on in the continuum from arrest to sentencing. Some tools are used to assess short-term risk, addressing whether a defendant will show up for court and obey conditions of release. Other tools tell us how likely the person is to commit new offenses.

Here’s the Problem with Bail ...

Just Policy Blog Guest Post as part of Pretrial Justice Institute and Justice Policy Institute Bail Month 2013. 

By Jean Chung

 
Say you’re arrested in Baltimore City. At your initial bail hearing, the bail commissioner will examine your current charge and your criminal record, if you have one. Based on this information, the bail commissioner will determine your bail amount—or whether you will be offered bail at all. If you are denied bail, you’ll be sitting in jail until your court date, which might be weeks or even months from now. If you are offered bail but can’t afford to pay, too bad. You’ll be sitting, too.

Here’s the problem: if two people with identical offense histories are arrested for the same crime and offered the same bail amount, a difference as arbitrary as the size of their wallets may keep one person in jail while the other walks free. When a bail system relies almost exclusively on financial terms of release, it inevitably results in the release of wealthier people while poorer individuals stay locked up for no reason other than their inability to pay. Since the criminal justice system has a disproportionate impact on low-income communities, bail amounts as low as $100 can keep people behind bars. On February 13, 2012, there were 40 people in the Baltimore City jail who had been detained because they could not afford bail amounts between $100 and $500.

A bail system that penalizes folks for being poor isn’t just discriminatory—it yields grave consequences for individuals and families. At 52 years old, Ed Spence was arrested and charged with fraud and a probation violation. He never even met with a bail commissioner; a correctional officer at Central Booking simply informed him that he would not receive bail. After that, he spent 40 days in jail awaiting trial. When he got out, the job he’d held at Safeway for 10 years was gone. He had been replaced.

Representation at First Appearance Bail Hearings

Just Policy Blog Guest Post as part of Pretrial Justice Institute and Justice Policy Institute Bail Month 2013. This post was originally posted Monday, September 23, 2013 by the Pretrial Justice Institute.

By Doug Colbert

Kudos to PJI for bringing national attention to much needed reform at the front-end of states' justice systems. Veterans of pretrial justice know that a defendant’s access to bail money typically determines which people accused of crime will regain liberty before trial and who will stay in jail for days, weeks and months at public expense until final disposition.

PJI’s emphasis on an evidence-based, risk assessment and recommendation provides another way. It allows judicial officers to make better informed decisions that often will lead to appropriate supervision rather than unnecessary jail for people charged with non-violent crimes and others who do not pose a significant safety or flight risk. Consistent with current law, Pretrial supervision provides a non-financial alternative to incarceration for people who lack the necessary bail money and who can be trusted to return to court.

Yet states’ pretrial justice reform must take one more critical step to enhance the administration of fair and equal justice for low-income and poor defendants and maximize cost savings in unnecessary incarceration.  They must include the surprising missing player -- the public defender and assigned defense lawyer -- and guarantee counsel’s representation at a defendant’s initial appearance. A defense lawyer’s early representation provides the necessary additional information and advocacy to ensure that judicial officers rule correctly.

We Need More Bail Reform

Just Policy Blog Guest Post as as part of Pretrial Justice Institute and Justice Policy Institute Bail Month 2013. This post was originally posted Wednesday, September 18, 2013 by Pretrial Services Agencies for the District of Columbia.

By Clifford T. Keenan, Director

September is Bail Month. Bail Month features activities aimed at educating the public on the need for bail reform in America’s courts. Most jurisdictions across the nation continue to rely on money bail as the mechanism for release and detention, albeit almost 50 years since the Bail Reform Act of 1966 introduced the concept of least restrictive non-financial pretrial release and over 40 years since the Court Reform and Criminal Procedures Act of 1971 set forth legal statutory-based pretrial detention of truly dangerous defendants. Money bail contributes to unnecessary detention of many low-risk pretrial defendants, inappropriate release of high-risk defendants who have financial means, unwarranted financial burdens on low-income communities, and the gamble of placing public safety in the hands of a bail bonding industry that always will put profit before the public good.

While there is much work still needed throughout the country, there is also much progress being made toward pretrial reform. Pretrial Justice Institute Executive Director Tim Murray notes, “Bail Month is undoubtedly a time to renew our commitment to pretrial reform, it is also time to celebrate. There is wonderful work being done by an ever-growing coalition of professionals who refuse to accept a status quo that is anything less than the best we can do for our communities.” For many criminal justice professionals and advocates looking to reform their bail systems, the District of Columbia continues to be the model of fair and effective pretrial decision-making and programming.

Respecting the Rights of Defendants

Just Policy Blog Guest Post as as part of Pretrial Justice Institute and Justice Policy Institute Bail Month 2013

By Lauren-Brooke Eisen

Across the country, too many jurisdictions still depend on money bail to determine which defendants can be released pretrial. Forcing defendants to face financial loss if they flee, proponents insist, is essential to ensure that they will return to court. Those who cannot afford bail remain in jail, a reality that disproportionally impacts low-income communities. This practice has significantly increased our overreliance on incarceration, contributing to an exponential growth in our prison population over the past three decades. More than 2 million Americans are behind bars, 20 percent of those pretrial, and more than 65 million adults – a quarter of the nation’s adult population – have criminal records.

In 1966, the United States Bail Reform Act established the rationale of bail: to guarantee a defendant’s court appearance. The Act emphasized that when possible, the law favors release pending trial. The law established a presumption of release by the least restrictive conditions with an emphasis on non-monetary terms of bail. Two decades later, the Bail ReformAct of 1984 permitted judges to consider the danger a defendant posed to the community as a factor in making bail decisions.

Five decades of research has consistently shown that pretrial detention increases post-conviction incarceration. These studies show that defendants detained in jail while awaiting trial plead guilty more often, are convicted more frequently, are sentenced to prison at a greater rate, and receive harsher sentences than those who are released awaiting trial or case disposition.

Bail Month: Prevention

This blog was originally posted on the Pretrial Justice Institute's Blog on September 9, 2013 as part of Pretrial Justice Institute and Justice Policy Institute Bail Month 2013.

By Sheriff Stan Hilkey, Mesa, County, CO

Law enforcement officers are familiar with the term "prevention" and understand that any time you can be proactive and direct energy towards problems, rather than simply reacting to them, you nearly always have positive outcomes. Prevention in the context of “recidivism” may be less familiar to us, though, and so we may be missing out on some of the most meaningful reform in the criminal justice system.

At those times when a crime occurs, law enforcement, specifically the cops on the street, have perfected the process of walking a person to the front door of the justice system and pushing them inside-- and this is the point at which we have traditionally stood back, dusted off our hands, and declared it’s up to the “system” now to deal with this person. We are also often the biggest critics of the system as we stand on the front step as spectators of what occurs after the arrest.

There is now a large body of research available to us that demands our action to improve the front end of the system. It turns out that interventions on reducing recidivism should start at the point of arrest, rather than starting at the point of trial or conviction, and the entire front end of the justice system, prior to trial or conviction, has remarkable ramifications for recidivism and our officer safety.