Life Sentences for Juveniles Offenders: Open for Later Review

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-juveniles-sentenced-to-life-have-option-for-new-reviews/2016/01/25/06e3dfc2-c378-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html

Discussing the issue of juvenile justice and appropriate/mandatory sentences for minors, this article divulges into the recent Supreme Court ruling that juveniles who were "sentenced as teenagers to mandatory life imprisonment for murder must have a chance to argue that they should be released from prison." The argument presented focuses on how youth can be rehabilitated and should not face life-long sentences, regardless of the heinousness of the crime, because they are not adults. This decision builds off of cases from 2005 where capital punishment, mandatory sentencing of life in prison without parole, and the chance of being imprisoned for life due to crimes other than murder were stricken of legality for juvenile offenders. Justifications for each ruling are generally explored as well as rebutted.

I felt a lot of ambivalence about this article and gave it significant thought for both sides. This topic evokes a lot of reaction from individuals involved, across the spectrum, in the juvenile system. It is important to acknowledge that children/youth are not fully developed in their decision-making abilities nor do they have full functioning impulse control regulation. I do believe that sentencing should be acknowledged on an individual basis but do also see the side of mandatory sentencing for certain crimes. There needs to be real consequences for these offenses so that youth learn that actions have reactions that reflect the choices each person makes. I am not advocating for all offenders to receive prison sentences for every crime; age of the offender is a large factor for me as well as circumstances surrounding the crime. However, looking at recent trends in legal decision changes, there seems to be a shift from no tolerance to some tolerance to extra tolerance. The system seems to be making changes to recognize research and outcomes that respect the difference in mental capabilities of youth and adults which I agree with. At the same token, crimes like murder, rape, etc sometimes require harsh punishment. It is a fear that in trying to help the system, lawmakers/policy enforcers may "over-correct" and there will be some really negative repercussions. I guess my opinion on this is still up in the air. If anyone else has thoughts on this, I would love to hear them.

The Balanced and Restorative Justice Model

http://www.rjca-inc.org/index.php/what-we-do/

 In the 1990's the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provided a grant to Florida Atlantic University for the purpose of developing an alternative approach to the many punitive approaches already in place that did not appear to be working.  Collaboratively, Florida Atlantic University and the Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation at the University of Minnesota School of Social Work developed The Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles Framework focused on rehabilitation and community involvement rather than punishment and isolation. 

However, despite the supporting research and its backing by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, this restorative model does not appear to be widely implemented.  Are the current models of juvenile justice based in evidence and research or based in tradition?  Does a restorative model have a place in the juvenile justice system in the United States?

Truancy Changes Coming?

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/12/02/columbus-ohio-keeping-kids-in-school-and-out-of-courts-push-underway-to-reform-school-discipline-in-ohio.html

There is now a model coming from Delaware county on how to better manage students who are on the cusp of having truancy charges put against them in a courtroom. This story highlights the issues of children being out of school for not only themselves, but their families, and the communities around them. With a holistic approach to caring for the students, it is the hope that less students will end up in juvenile detention and more students will remain in the classroom receiving the education they need and have the right to.

This is a very interesting topic for me because I have always seen suspensions and explosions as somewhat of a reward for bad behavior. This allows students to remain at home or in their communities, which students would much rather do than be in school. Providing holistic treatment to these students and really finding the root cause of their actions is something that we as social workers and other behavioral health specialists need to work together to transform our education system alongside teachers and administrators. With our help it may be possible to put less of a load on teachers (who already work hard enough) and allow for better academic, social, and mental health outcomes for the students that we interact with on a daily basis. It is time that we rally around our schools and give them the resources and personnel that they need to better serve our students, no matter their socio-economic status or their physical location in the state. Every child deserves an equal education and with this equal education we can hopefully have more students becoming productive members of society and staying out of the trouble that so easily entangles them.

Why the Death of 16 Year Old Gynnya McMillen Needs to Change the Treatment of Justice-Involved Youth

On January 10, 2016, 16 year old Gynnya McMillen arrived at Lincoln Village Juvenile Detention Center in Kentucky. 

On January 11, 2016, at 9:55 a.m., she was found dead in her cell. 

Although her cause of death is not yet known, there are many alarming events that occurred between McMillen's arrival at the detention center and when she was found non responsive. Upon her arrival, McMillen was put into a "Aikido restraint" for refusing to remove her sweatshirt during booking procedures.  The use of a martial arts move has raised eyebrows of professionals, as it is not typically used in a juvenile corrections setting. The circumstances are also cause for concern, as it is only considered appropriate to use immediate physical force when there's a risk of physical danger to themselves or others. Her passive resistance does not constitute restraint. 

The detention center also requires staff to check in on youth in isolation every 15 minutes. A staff member has been placed on paid administrative leave for failing to do so. McMillen did not respond when staff came in to inform her that she had a phone call and she missed breakfast, both which should have been reason for concern. 

When McMillen was discovered, staff waited 9 minutes before calling 911. It took them 2 more minutes to begin CPR. 

There is no reason that a healthy 16 year old should pass away during their stay at a juvenile detention facility. Even if the martial arts hold preformed on her did not contribute to her death, the facility failed to monitor her safety. If they have followed protocol and checked in every 15 minutes, maybe they could have intervened and saved her life. Even when she was discovered unconscious, there was a clear lack of urgency on the part of the staff.

 Is lack of training to blame, or do we need to take a deeper look at deliberate unethical treatment of justice-involved youth?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/audio-cpr-started-11-minutes-after-staff-found-gynnya-mcmillen/

Racial Bias in the Juvenile Justice System

Is the juvenile justice system racially biased?

"The system is not fair. Institutional racism is alive and well in the juvenile justice system, as it is in the criminal justice system. It's easier to identify with people that are more like yourself, so if you have judges that are predominantly from that same community, they can identify. . . . The same thing happens with people who have money versus people who don't have money--if they can demonstrate a support system that can act as a safety net or think they can act as a safety net for them on the outside, judges are more prone to buy into that."

- Bridgett Jones, Former Supervisor with Santa Clara County Public Defender

As Americans, we have high expectations of both our juvenile and criminal justice systems. It is reasonable that we can expect both systems to be fair and equitable in the way they enforce the law of the land. However, research says that the juvenile system is doing an immense disservice to youthful offenders of color. They are highly over-represented in juvenile detention centers as well as in adult prisons and jails. Based on these statistics this article quotes a handful of professionals within the juvenile justice system on their thoughts about this issue. 

The dilemma lies in the fact that many judges and others working in the system recognize the bias that exists. Most of them are aware of it and trying to work against it. But no one really seems to know where to place blame and focus reform. After reading these quotes, what do you think the best way to deal with this issue might be?

Why are New York children being locked up like hardened criminals?

New York is one of two states- the second is North Carolina- that treats 16- and 17-year-olds, who make up the bulk of all juvenile cases, as adults and not juveniles, regardless of the crime. The focus is on raising the age of criminal responsibility to the age of 18. 

New York's antiquated law is still in place despite research that shows it jeopardizes public safety by increasing the likelihood of reoffending. Research has proven that the adolescent's brain is not fully developed until they are in their 20’s. This is why youth are sometimes more impulsive- and also why youth are more receptive to rehabilitative services.

Treating children as adults in the criminal justice system is short-sighted and ineffective. It is critical for New York to ensure that youth involved in the justice system are provided with court processes, services, and placement facilities that are developmentally appropriate. 

Raising the age will not only produce better outcomes for New York's youth, but has also been proven to better protect public safety with multiple studies showing that youth who receive age-appropriate services are less likely to re-offend. 

Shackling of Juvenile Offenders

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/states-that-limit-or-prohibit-juvenile-shackling-and-solitary-confinement635572628.aspx



Many youth are shackled for court appearances regardless of the crime committed. Juvenile offenders who are charged with non-violent crimes and misdemeanors are often restrained with shackles even when thought to not pose safety concerns. Some say shackles and restraints are needed to protect the other individuals in courtrooms, while others argue shackling traumatizes and labels youth. According to the chart in the article, some states have limitations for the use of shackles. Ohio is one of the states that does not have any bans or limitations on the use of shackles for juvenile offenders. What are your thoughts on this topic?