NYT to Jindal: Go Missouri!

From the New York Times editorial page:

Two years have passed since the federal courts relinquished control of Louisiana’s notoriously troubled juvenile justice system. The state regained its autonomy by reducing the number of children held in detention and by promising to embrace reforms based on Missouri’s system, which long ago abandoned sprawling, prison-style facilities in favor of small, regional facilities that focus on rehabilitation.

Despite those promises, Louisiana’s system was never fully reorganized and the regional facilities never got built. Embarrassed by fresh charges of violence and brutality at the infamous Jetson Center for Youth near Baton Rouge, the state has now promised to close the troubled facility and proceed with genuine reform.

Gov. Bobby Jindal needs to make sure that the state’s new plan truly follows the Missouri model and that Louisiana’s juvenile justice officials implement it this time.

The community-based centers in Missouri are considered a national model that stresses therapy, not punishment, and often includes parents as well as the children. Instead of housing minor offenders and more serious offenders in the same place, as too often happens, Missouri sorts detainees by the seriousness of their crimes.

The oversight continues even after the young persons’ release, through case managers who help former inmates with job placement, school issues and drug or alcohol treatment. Missouri’s system more than pays for itself by keeping recidivism rates low. After completing the program, officials say, less than 10 percent of detainees go back to prison through the juvenile courts.

 

A team of consultants led by Mark Steward, an expert on the Missouri juvenile justice system, is advising Louisiana on how to proceed. For the sake of some of the state’s most vulnerable children, the Jindal administration should embrace the advice and follow it.

NYT on JJDPA

Editorial in today’s New York Times:

Children in Adult Jails

Children who are confined to adult jails are at greater risk of being raped, battered or pushed to suicide. They also are more likely to become violent criminals than children handled through the juvenile justice system. When Congress reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, it should press the states to end this barbaric practice.

The juvenile justice law provides federal aid to states that agree to humanize their often Dickensian systems — and to refrain from placing children in adult jails. The bargain worked well enough until the 1990s, when there was an outbreak of hysteria about so-called super predators and an adolescent crime wave that never materialized.

States classified ever larger numbers of young offenders as adults. Today, laws in more than 40 states permit adult courts to try children as young as 14. Perhaps as many as half the young people who are transferred into the adult system are never convicted as adults — and some are never convicted at all. But by the time the system is finished with them, many will have spent more than six months in adult jails, according to a report by the Campaign for Youth Justice, an advocacy group based in Washington.

Not surprisingly, these young people are much more likely to harm themselves in adult jails than in juvenile facilities. Those who survive often return to their communities as damaged people who are much more likely to commit crimes and return to prison.

 

The current system is counterproductive and inhumane. Congress could remedy this with one simple fix. It should require all states that receive federal juvenile justice aid to refrain from housing people under the age of 18 in adult jails, except for those accused of the most serious crimes like rape and murder.

Texas Potheads Smoke Pot From Head

Well, I guess it’s less likely to shatter than glass, but still…

Settlement Reached in TYC Case

From the AP via Houston Chronicle:

AUSTIN — A federal judge has approved a settlement between the Texas Youth Commission and the Justice Department over inmate safety at the state’s juvenile prison in Edinburg.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa signed the settlement Monday and it was announced by the TYC on Wednesday. Hinojosa had previously rejected a settlement on grounds it lacked a specific timeline for suggested reforms at the Evins Regional Juvenile Center, which federal prosecutors began probing in 2006 after numerous reports of abuse.

A Justice Department review released in 2007 described a “chaotic and dangerous” environment at Evins that violated inmates’ constitutional rights with its high levels of violence and too few guards to control the facility.

The settlement establishes parameters for safe living conditions to protect inmates from violence and staffing levels, restricts use of youth restraints and guards against retaliation for reporting abuse and misconduct. The Justice Department will also review the lockup every six months.

“If we are to have any success in rehabilitating youth,” said TYC Conservator Richard Nedelkoff, “we must first provide them a safe and responsive environment so they can concentrate o their treatment programs, instead of worrying about being in danger.”

Revelations of inmate abuse and possible cover-ups shook Texas’ juvenile corrections system last year and prompted state leaders to order a massive overhaul of the agency. Several top administrators were either fired or resigned.

Jena Six Update

Remember the Jena Six? Almost a year and a half after the school fight that set this national scandal in motion, and more than half a year after an estimated 20,000 civil rights protesters descended on the small Louisiana town to demand justice for the black defendants, only one of them has faced trial. In a certain sense, given the brand of Jim Crow justice that has prevailed in Jena, that’s a good thing. District Attorney Reed Walters, working in open coordination with his tag-team partner Judge J.P. Mauffray Jr., undermined generally accepted rules of procedure in order to throw the biggest book at Mychal Bell as quickly as possible. Last June Bell, a juvenile at the time of the fight, was convicted as an adult by an all-white jury of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy (the original charge was attempted murder). But the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated his conviction in September, just before the rally, and ruled that he should have been tried as a juvenile. He pleaded guilty in a new hearing in December and is serving out his sentence in juvenile detention. The other defendants, facing similar charges–one is being charged as a juvenile, the rest as adults–remain in legal limbo.

Yesterday that limbo was extended further. According to this update, motions for three of the Jena Six defendants will continue pending an appeal filed by their attorneys. “Those representing Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis and Theo Shaw said that…Mauffray had previously denied motions before him to recuse himself as the trial judge in their cases without a hearing,” the AP reports. “The attorneys feel Mauffray has an unfair bias in the case, according to motions filed. His denial to their recusal request has been appealed to the 3rd Circuit, so Mauffray said he won’t hear other motions until that appeal is decided.”

Justice delayed, as they say…

Cross-Examining the Adolescent Brain

“Should young people who are accused of a crime receive the full force of laws intended for adults, given accumulating evidence that their brains are not fully matured?” This is the question that an interesting article in the health section of today’s Washington Post attempts to address. “Pitting attorney against attorney, scientist against scientist, even attorneys against scientists, that question has the potential to redraw courtroom battle lines nationwide,” staff writer Laura Sessions Stepp explains.

Representing one side of the debate in this article is Jay Giedd, a neuroscientist who runs a children’s brain-imaging project at the National Institute of Mental Health. “Brain development only tells us it is very possible that children are immature until a certain age,” he says. “We can’t conclude how mature an individual is at a given age, or how responsible for his actions. There’s some evidence, but it’s hardly overwhelming.”

Another agnostic on considering brain development as a key determinant to behavior in juvenile cases is Baruch Fischhoff, a professor of social and decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. “It’s a very incomplete picture, one of simple tasks created in highly artificial settings,” he says. “It evokes all the prejudices people have about adolescents.”

On the other side is Laurence Steinberg, a psychology professor at Temple University and an expert in adolescent development. Steinberg acknowledges that much of the science on adolescent brain development is “reasonable speculation,” but his research has led him to conclude that “there is a whole set of abilities that are still maturing after age 16. It has changed my mind about where the boundary should be drawn between adolescence and adulthood. Even at 21 or 22, kids are still developing competencies.”

“Under good conditions, kids can be very good decision makers,” Steinberg says. Under less-than-good conditions, however, their judgment is easily impaired–more easily, he argues, than adults. In one experiment, for example,

Steinberg asked teenagers, college students and adults to play a video driving game, either alone or with two friends watching.

The subjects were given the choice of driving through an intersection’s yellow light, potentially winning lots of points but running the risk of crashing and losing everything, or not running the light, thereby avoiding a crash but winning fewer points.

When playing alone, the teens tended to act like the grown-ups and stop at the light. When friends were observing, however, the young drivers were more likely to sail through the intersection, which suggests to Steinberg that still-developing prefrontal cortexes hadn’t fully exercised their braking power.

“Under ideal conditions, kids and adults don’t look that different,” Steinberg says. “But when you introduce distractions including other people, the distractions have more harmful effects on kids.”

I don’t pretend any scientific expertise on this subject, but I strongly believe the law should treat juveniles separately from adults, so naturally I’m sympathetic to scientific research that bolsters such arguments in court. I side with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision in Roper v. Simmons, the landmark 2005 case that abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders. “From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed,” Kennedy wrote. Citing scientific and sociological research, he also found reason to rule that “juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible [than adults] to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure… This is explained in part by the prevailing circumstance that juveniles have less control, or less experience with control, over their own environment.” Continuing to allow capital punishment for young offenders after such research had become available, Kennedy concluded, would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

This is, clearly, one of the essential debates among juvenile justice professionals right now, and as you can tell from the Post article, it’s far from settled. There is no shortage of resources for those who want to plunge in. For starters, check out the two-part (one, two) Coalition for Juvenile Justice report, published in 2006, which includes a great overview and resources for further investigation.

Other suggestions? Thoughts? Add them to the comments section below.

Anti-Bullying Bill Passes Florida Senate

From the Miami Herald:

For the last several years, proponents of anti-bullying legislation have fought for a state law that would prohibit harassment of students. Every year, the bills failed.

But on Wednesday, supporters were cheering after the Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act unanimously passed the Florida Senate; it previously got unanimous support in the House of Representatives. Next stop: Gov. Charlie Crist, who told reporters he would probably sign it into law.

”I’m against bullying, too,” he said.

Named after a Cape Coral teen who committed suicide in 2005 after being bullied, the measure would require school districts to adopt policies prohibiting bullying and harassment.

DEAD TEEN’S MOTHER

Debbie Johnston, Jeffrey’s mother, wiped tears from her eyes as she sat in the Senate gallery and watched the vote. This was her third session working to get the bill passed. ”We’re going to keep working to make sure that no child has to stay home because they’re afraid of what’s going to happen at school or at the bus stop,” she said. “And no teacher will have to sit there and watch a child bullied to death without being able to do anything about it. Now we can do something and we will.”

The law, which also prohibits cyber-bullying — harassing or threatening another using the Internet — would require districts to have a process for reporting and investigating bullying claims. It also mandates counseling for bullies and victims.

If Crist signs the bill, Florida would become the 36th state in the nation with a law prohibiting bullying and harassment [EMPHASIS ADDED], according to anti-bullying organization Bully Police USA. The group rates states on its website, www.bullypolice.org, and has given Florida an F because it didn’t have a law in place.

Brenda High, the organization’s founder and mother of a teen who committed suicide in 1998 after being bullied, said the new law has potential to rate A++.

”All over the country, I get e-mails from parents who complain their kids have been assaulted and bullied and harassed,” she said. The law “tells the schools that they can’t just allow this type of garbage to go on.”

”This is a win for kids,” said David Barkey, southern area counsel for the Anti-Defamation League. “Unfortunately, bullying is epidemic in our schools. Cyber-bullying is growing exponentially. This is a real major step in trying to counter bullying in our schools, but of course, a law is only as good as it’s enforced.”

CATEGORIES

Although the bill does not specify categories of students, legislators clarified that the law would prohibit harassment targeted at specific characteristics, such as disability, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation. ”The intent of this legislation is to protect all children from all types of bullying,” said Sen. Carey Baker, a Eustis Republican and the bill’s Senate sponsor.

Said Stratton Pollitzer, deputy director of gay-rights group Equality Florida: “We believe that the sponsors have put districts on notice that they have to include protections for gay and transgendered students or they’re breaking the law.”

Under the law, each of the state’s 67 districts must adopt a policy that complies with the new requirements by Dec. 1. If they don’t comply, districts could lose a portion of the state’s nearly $77 million for ‘’safe schools” programs.

Broward and Miami-Dade get about $18.5 million combined from that pot.

Officials with both districts have said they expect to be in compliance by then. Board members in Miami-Dade approved a new anti-bullying policy two years ago. A beefed-up policy in Broward that was created around the proposed law will go to board members for discussion this month.