You are here

juvenile law

Court Orders Lawyers for Juveniles Seeking Parole

The Massachusetts Supreme Court, 5-2, has ruled that inmates serving life sentences for murders committed while they were juveniles are constitutionally entitled to be represented by lawyers and to have access to expert witnesses at their parole hearings, NECN reports. The 5-member majority said providing defendants access to lawyers and to experts would ensure they have meaningful access to argue for parole.

The court also ruled that inmates can appeal parole denials, although judges could not order that parole be granted--only order new parole hearings.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional. 

PA Supreme Court Rejects Lifetime Registration for Juvenile Sex Offenders

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled against lifetime registration for juvenile sex offenders, ruling a state law is unconstitutional because the juveniles have no ability to challenge an irrebuttable presumption they are likely to reoffend, the Associated Press reports: "'We agree with the juveniles that (the law)'s registration requirements improperly brand all juvenile offenders' reputations with an indelible mark of a dangerous recidivist, even though the irrebuttable presumption linking adjudication of specified offenses with a high likelihood of recidivating is not ‘universally true,'” Justice Max Baer wrote for the court.

Children Strip-Searched at Phila. Family Court

KYW's Cherri Gregg reports that sheriff's deputies strip-searched juveniles appearing in criminal and custody cases in Philadelphia family court this week after the new courthouse officially opened. The juveniles were made to take off all their clothes, squat and cough. The practice was stopped by court administrators, Gregg reports. "Sources said the main concern of adults who complained about the procedures was ongoing traumatization of the children, since some of these juveniles may have already been victims of physical, sexual, or other abuse," Gregg also reports."

Juvenile Justice Has Come a Long Way. But Racial Bias Lingers

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Mon, 02/10/2014 - 10:31

A recent documentary is highlighting the issue of racial bias in the juvenile justice system. In reporting a piece for the Connecticut Law Tribune, I learned that Connecticut is widely praised for making great steps in improving its juvenile justice system. But statistics show that, despite those reforms, racial bias hasn't been erased. More kids of color than white kids are sent into the system and sent into the system for longer.

Here's an excerpt of the full piece: 

By most accounts, Connecticut has made tremendous progress in reforming its juvenile justice system. But there's one serious problem remaining: racial disparities in the youths who are sent to juvenile lockups.

That's the thrust of a recent Connecticut Public Broadcasting Network documentary, a production sponsored by the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee and paid for with federal funds.

According to the documentary, police are 3.24 times more likely to write incident reports when they find a black juvenile misbehaving than when they have similar encounters with white kids. Latino juveniles are 2.4 times more likely to have incident reports filed about their actions than their caucasian counterparts.

Further, the documentary reported, prosecutors are far more likely to transfer black juveniles charged with serious, Class A and Class B felonies to adult court than their white counterparts. And the state Department of Correction is four times more likely to place a black youth who committed a serious offense in a secure juvenile facility than a white youth, and three times more likely to put a Latino teen in such a facility than a white teen.

The documentary, "The Color of Justice," focuses on data presented in a 2011 report by the state Office of Policy and Management. The report found that racial disparities were present in half of the 18 points in which decisions are made in the juvenile justice system.

"We've … accepted the data and we own it and we're each trying in our separate agencies or venues" to address the issue, said Superior Court Judge Bernadette Conway, the chief administrative judge of the juvenile division.

Cathy Jackman, the independent producer and editor of the documentary, said Connecticut is one of the states considered to be at the forefront of addressing the issue of racial bias in the juvenile justice system.

"I think that the state was actually very courageous in exposing themselves," said Jackman, who noted that while the documentary was government-sponsored, she retained editorial control. "The Office of Policy and Management did not have to reveal these numbers."

Marc Schindler, executive director of the national Justice Policy Institute, said Connecticut has implemented many best practices to reform juvenile justice. For example, the state has aggressively worked to move most 16- and 17-year-olds out of the adult court system, increased community-based programming, and reduced its reliance on incarceration when dealing with juvenile lawbreakers.

Connecticut is a "true turn-around story in many respects," Schindler said. "Through the '80s and '90s, Connecticut was known unfortunately for having a quite dysfunctional system for young people who got in trouble with the law." And this was in a state that is one of the wealthiest in the country, he said.

Given the success in improving other aspects of the juvenile justice system, Schindler said he's "optimistic" Connecticut will make progress on racial disparities.

The documentary emphasizes that racial disparities often are not the result of overt prejudice but stem from implicit bias.

"We only use a small portion of our brain consciously," said Conway, the juvenile judge. "When we interact with people we make unconscious, instantaneous judgments we may not be aware of."

States Taking 'Half Measures' to Curb Mandatory Life Sentences For Juveniles

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional sentencing juveniles to mandatory life sentences, the New York Times reports that "most states have taken half measures, at best, to carry out the rulings, which could affect more than 2,000 current inmates and countless more in years to come." State supreme courts have been split on whether the ruling was retroactive, The Times further reports.

One example of a long sentence is a 70-year sentence given to a 14-year-0ld in Florida.

The Times also notes: "Pennsylvania has the most inmates serving automatic life sentences for murders committed when they were juveniles: more than 450, according to the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia. In October, the State Supreme Court found that the Miller ruling did not apply to these prior murder convictions, creating what the law center, a private advocacy group, called an 'appallingly unjust situation' with radically different punishments depending on the timing of the trial."

Editorial: Teens Committing Adult Crimes Shouldn't Be Held in Adult Jails

The Washington Post editorializes that children, even teenagers, should not be held in the adult criminal justice system. Among other reasons, incarceration does little to prevent minors from committing crimes again, minors are the most likely to be sexually abused by other inmates, and "teenagers are not fully developed; studies have shown that their brains aren’t as capable of moral reasoning and impulse control as adults in their early or mid-20s," The Post argues.

Third Circuit Rules Ban On Life Without Parole For Juveniles Could Apply Retroactively

The Washington Post reports that three men sentenced as juveniles to serve life without parole might be able to make the case to trial-court judges that their sentences should be adjusted:  "The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said there was at least some reason to think last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Miller v. Alabama, throwing out mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, should be applied retroactively. The court stressed its decision is tentative and made under a standard that means there is enough possible merit to warrant a full exploration of the matter. The defendants must still convince the district judges they should be resentenced."

A circuit split might be developing on whether Miller applies retroactively, which could set up another decision for the U.S. Supreme Court to make, the paper also reported.

Alabama Supreme Court Sets Out Test For Sentencing Convicted Juvenile Homicide Defendants to Life Without Parole

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. Now the Alabama Supreme Court has set out a 14-factor test that judges can use to decide if juveniles convicted of murder can be sentenced to life with or without the possiblity of parole. The Sentencing Law and Policy Blog noted that the Alabama Supreme Court found an opinon from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Knox, helpful in setting out the 14 factors, which include the juvenile's mental-health hisotry, the juvenile's emotional maturity and development and "any other relevant factor related to the juvenile's youth."

Subscribe to RSS - juvenile law