Behind the razor wire at Rhode Island’s juvenile detention center, teenage offenders are restoring four vintage diners that have been brought there by preservationists for the New Hope Diner Project.

This fall, the first restored diner, Hickey’s, should open in Rhode Island, with some of the teenagers working the griddles and the cash register, and even preparing to manage the restaurant someday.

“The whole poetry behind it is that these are kids who have been pretty much cast away emotionally and criminally, getting a chance to restore beloved eateries that have been cast off from society, too,” said Daniel Zilka, the acting director of the American Diner Museum, who rescues decrepit diners and helps run the project. “If they continue on the path that they’ve been moving upon they would end up in an adult correctional facility. This is probably their last opportunity.”

The offenders at the detention center, some as young as 13, have been convicted of crimes like sexual assault, armed robbery, breaking and entering, and drug offenses, and sentenced to serve 6 to 18 months. The center, the Rhode Island Training School, also has maximum security for offenders including murderers, but offenders qualify for the project only if they behave well enough to move to the regular detention population. They must also have, or nearly have, a high school equivalency diploma.

Rob, 16, convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for striking his sister’s former boyfriend with a bat, rendering him deaf in one ear, is one of 16 youths reconstructing Hickey’s — its mahogany subfloor, porcelain panels, and a 1954 Chevy truck that Mr. Zilka bought on eBay.

“It keeps my mind off the negative,” said Rob (state officials withheld last names because juvenile offenders’ records are not public). “I can say, ‘Yeah I helped make that.’ ”

Rob, who said he had “been in detention a million times,” said he preferred the diner work over some other training programs, like the poetry and rapping workshop, which he said censored some language.

“You can’t express what you want — nothing about drugs, violence, sex,” said Rob, who plans to record a rap album and call it “In Harm’s Way, Volume 1: Talk Is Cheap.” “They just want us to rap positive. But I can’t just be talking about sunshine and flowers and how colorful they are. That’s not my life experience.”

Devin, 18, with a 10-year history of armed robbery and lesser crimes, said he also values the diner program, especially taking apart the stove and refrigerator because, “I always want to break things.”

“I’ve been doing the carpentry class my whole bid, but before the diner I was doing little boxes and plaques that you send home,” he said. “That really don’t teach you nothing.”

Now he is thinking of a carpentry job or diner work after he is released.

Fueling such ambitions is the point, said John Scott, the community liaison for the school who had the idea for the project, including the tool belts that offenders get when they are released.

“Building birdhouses like a traditional high school program is not what these kids need,” Mr. Scott said. “We’re actually preparing them for all kinds of skills: there’s ceramic tile in these diners, sheet metal work, plumbing, electrical. You always meet people who want these kids to be locked away, and I respect their ill-informed opinion. But I look at the training school as kind of like Home Depot of the correctional system. We give them the tools, and when they’re ready to use it, they’ll use it.”

Other offenders here take culinary arts classes, receiving food-handling certificates.

Bill Tribelli, the culinary arts instructor, will help devise the diner menus, featuring some old standbys like corned beef and cabbage and “hot wieners,” but also recipes from his cookbook, “Jailhouse Cooking.” Those dishes include Jailhouse Chicken, Jailhouse-Style Macaroni and Cheese (made with WisPride or Velveeta), or Strawberry Mousse (Cool Whip and instant strawberry pudding).

“We need to have jailhouse things,” Mr. Tribelli said. “Most of the people in the jail clientele like their food hot, spicy and full of cheese.”

Mr. Zilka envisions contemporary updates like tiramisù pancakes.

“Who goes to diners now and has tapioca pudding or liver and onions?” he said.

To keep the cash-strapped state from paying $25,000 to $200,000 to restore each diner, Mr. Scott and Mr. Zilka found partners in Rhode Island. New Harvest Coffee Roasters in Pawtucket concocted New Hope coffee (organic, fair trade, shade grown), and about $4 of each $11 bag supports the project.

Students at Bryant University in Smithfield are creating business plans for each diner. Angelo’s, an 84-year-old landmark restaurant in Providence, will operate the diners, employing offenders once they are released.

“Hopefully, one of them will be able to own one,” said Robert Antignano, the president of Angelo’s.

Norm Lambert, the carpentry teacher, said he had initially questioned giving offenders access to dangerous tools. “When I first started working here, I thought how foolish is this?” Mr. Lambert said. “You get a little bit of behavior problems. But it’s kind of like a carrot you hang over their head. If they act up and I have to discipline them, they’re not going to come back.”

Julian, 18, who said his offenses included grand larceny and beating up his father, knows that “if you assault anybody with tools it’s an extra two years.” He wants to put his juvenile record behind him, attend a college like Brown University and go to law school. Then, he said, “I want to be a state governor, actually.”

Families who owned the diners laud the restorations and do not mind the connection to convicted criminals.

“My father was one of the biggest juvenile delinquents there was till the day he died,” said Virginia Ryan, whose father, Ernest, operated Sherwood’s. He did not commit crimes, she said, but practical jokes, like resting a spoon on the stove before giving it to a customer who complained the soup was too cold. “The guy burned his lip.”

Joyce Hickey, whose father, John, ran Hickey’s, said having juvenile offenders restore diners is “fitting almost in some ways.”

“A wide variety of people frequented the diner, the continuum of life,” Ms. Hickey said. “My father was a fair man. He always did see the good in people without being blinded by the bad.”

The full article:

Pct. 6 Justice of the Peace Gustavo “Gus” Garza will not be able to allow spanking as an option for disciplining children in his courtroom, according to a court ruling Wednesday.

State District Judge Abel C. Limas, who asserted jurisdiction in the case, halted spanking as a form of punishment in Garza’s courtroom on Wednesday. Limas pointed to the protection, safety and emotional well-being of children as his reason for approving the temporary injunction.

“I am encouraged that Judge Limas acted to protect the interests of the children of Los Fresnos,” said Mark Sossi, the attorney who on behalf of three families requested that courtroom spankings be stopped.

The ruling came after the filing of a lawsuit by Mary Vasquez and Daniel Zurita against Garza last week. The lawsuit alleges that Zurita had felt compelled to spank his stepdaughter in lieu of a $500 fine and criminal conviction for truancy.

“Obviously, we had one judge acting outside his authority when forcing parents to spank their children in his courtroom,” Sossi said. “It doesn’t help the children with anything, and it contributes to a circus-like atmosphere in the courtroom.”

Cameron County Chief Counsel Richard Burst said he didn’t know whether the county would attempt an appeal.

“I think it’s best to sit on it and make a decision tomorrow,” said Burst, who with co-counsel Bruce Hodge, defended Garza at Wednesday’s hearing.

With the county’s legal represenation at his side, Garza took the stand early in the hearing to defend the spankings.

“I think that discipline works,” Garza said of paddling, which he said parents select in lieu of paying fines by choice. “It’s effective. It’s efficient. It’s immediate. There are no questions.”

Garza said that he did not compel or coerce parents to paddle children. However, he also testified that he does not provide other alternatives to fines, such as counseling or community service, because he does not believe these are effective.

He estimated that fewer than 100 children have been paddled in his courtroom since he took office in January 2007.

During the hearing, Sossi directed Garza to demonstrate how children are positioned for the paddling. Stepping down, Garza placed his arms on the armrests of a chair and bent down with his buttocks facing Limas.

“I find your approach trying to embarrass me,” Garza told the attorney. Sossi rebutted by asking whether Garza thinks 13- and 14-year-old girls and boys would find it humiliating.

Limas also found that there had been no criminal intent on Garza’s part and that the spankings had not been illegal. The judge ordered Garza to refrain from this form of disciplinary action in the courtroom.

Vasquez and Zurita also took the stand, noting that they do not believe in corporal punishment. Zurita said he felt he had no choice but to paddle his stepdaughter because he did not have the money for the $500 fine.

“There were no other options,” Zurita testified.

Limas indicated agreement in his comments from the bench, noting that he at times would not have been able to pay $500 either and that he had heard no testimony that the fines had been less than $500. “There needs to be a clear option,” Limas said.

Limas indicated that the Texas Legislature would be the body that could address the issue of corporal punishment in the courts.

“We are not here to make law,” Limas said.

Source: Perez-Trevino, Emma. Without a Paddle. The Brownsville Herald. June 11, 2008.

One can safely assume the sex health education taught in Goose Creek (Baytown) ISD meets the state’s abstinence-only-until-marriage guidelines.  If the 14 year old’s knowledge of pregnancy and childbirth was limited to the information Texas teachers are allowed to provide adolescents, she knew little if anything at all.

An irony in this case is the fact that the class was being taught the week the girl gave birth.  Another is that three weeks later (4/23/08) the program is being questioned by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data are staggering:

About 1/3 of girls in the United States get pregnant before age 20.  In 2006, a total of 435,427 infants were born to mothers aged 15–19 years, a birth rate of 41.9 live births per 1,000 women in this age group.  More than 80% of these births were unintended…  Although pregnancy and birth rates among girls aged 15–19 years have declined 34% since 1991, birth rates increased for the first time in 2006 (from 40.5 per 1,000 women in this age group in 2005 to 41.9 in 2006).  

Although this article will not discuss at length concerns regarding sexually transmitted disease (STD), keep in mind that unprotected sex presents the potential for unwanted pregnancy and potentially life-threatening illness.  According to the CDC 2006 National Surveillance Data for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis girls age 15-19 have the overwhelmingly highest rates of Chlamydia.  Less notorious than the other two STD studied or HIV, Chlamydia is extremely transmissible, often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed as a more benign yeast infection and causes painful Pelvic Inflammatory Disease which if untreated can lead to sterility or even death.

Yet school age children in Texas and 27 other states are essentially taught to just-say-no. Their state’s acceptance of federal funding for abstinence-only education disallows teachers and school administrators from offering any additional prevention information.  Seventeen states have said, “no thanks.” 

Abstinence-only education has a lengthy and complicated history.  Emphasis on abstinence-only education began during the Reagan era.  After a brief period of openness during the early 1990’s, the policy was signed into law as an attachment to the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act. The statute allocates funding only to states that promise their schools will teach students –including sexually inquisitive and active teens– to simply pledge abstinence.  Specifically, Title V, Section 510 states that “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which: 

1. has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity
2. teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children
3. teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems
4. teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
5. teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
6. teaches that bearing children out-of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
7. teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances
8. teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Educators, youth advocates, and family planning, public health, and HIV experts initially objected with no luck and no data at the time to convince the conservative Congress otherwise.  Despite independent studies suggesting oherwise, the Bush administration bolstered funding for the policy.  Furthermore, it has ignored data showing no significant behavioral changes with abstinence-only educated children versus those receiving comprehensive sex education.  A study commissioned by the government was quietly released over a year ago with little more than a press release.   

Comprehensive sex education incorporates abstinence into a more complete discussion of family planning and safer sex; and also can be tailored for age appropriate information.  Astinence only advocates often suggest that sex education should be provided by parents in the home.  If that is the case, why have you and I spent over a billion dollars telling school children to just say no?

Key critiques of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs include: 

> Abstinence only as a program goal is out of touch with current trends.  In fact, 95% of Americans have intercourse before marriage.

> Many abstinence-only programs withheld vital information such as accurate condom efficacy or dispensed blatant misinformation such as claims that 50% of gay youth have HIV and 10% of women commit suicide post-abortion.  Although many have corrected their curriculum, some persist in promoting false information. 

> Abstinence-only programs have failed to demonstrate behavioral changes based on extensive evaluation.

> Conversely, evaluation of comprehensive sexuality education programs (virtually all include abstinence education) show that many help youth delay sex and learn how to use condoms if/when they decide to have sex.

> Declines in adolescent sexual activity (often touted as proof that the abstinence-only program works) preceded widespread federal funding of abstinence-only education and are attributed to better use of contraceptives.  Sadly, data also show that those numbers are again on the rise.  

For those eager to suggest only certain liberal organizations intent on encouraging underage sex oppose the policy, think again.  The list of organizations publically opposed to the failed policy includes: the American Medical Association, Office of National AIDS Policy, Institute of Medicine, CDC, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

It is time for policy makers to just say no to a failed policy that serves ideology, not youth or public health. The situation of an unwanted pregnancy in which school girls across America find themselves, IS shameful.  However, the shame is not on them for becoming pregnant.  The shame is on policy makers who have failed to speak truth to the complex topic of sex.  The shame is that ineffective abstinence only programs have received $1.5 billion tax dollars.  Conversely, zero tax dollars are spent on comprehensive curriculum which has been proven more effective by states that refused federal funds.  

For more information — including tips for discussing sex with your own children — check out the following websites:

Centers for Disease Control — http://cdc.gov

Advocates for Youth — http://www.advocatesforyouth.org

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy — http://www.thenationalcampaign.org

The Healthy Teen Network — http://www.healthyteennetwork.org

What We Know From the Press

Its easy to get a distorted view of a situation like this and make assumptions based off of bits and pieces of information presented in the media. From what I’ve read, these seem to be the relevant facts:

The girl was at full term between 35 and 36 weeks. The baby boy was born 5 pounds 6 ounces and 18 inches long. It is uncertain whether or not the girl knew she was pregnant. The girl was in the nurses office for 2 and a half hours with a heating pad for complaints of cramps that morning. After leaving the nurse’s office she went to the restroom where she then gave birth. No adults knew the girl was pregnant, including her parents and the nurse. “The Medical Examiner’s Office determined that the baby boy died after being submerged in water with paper obstructing his airway and receiving blunt force trauma to his head and neck.” (Baytown Sun Article) After a 12 week investigation, the Baytown Police believe the evidence shows that this was done intentionally and knowingly.

Capital Murder in Texas

In Texas, murder is “intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual.” Tex. Penal Code §19.02(b)(1). To be capital murder, the crime must be committed with one of the circumstances listed under the capital murder statute. §19.03(a). In this case, the relevant circumstance was the age of the victim. It is capital murder if the victim is under six years old. § 19.03(a)(8). A prosecutor has discretion when deciding what charges to bring against the defendant. So for example, the prosecutor could charge the defendant with a lesser offense, even though all the elements of capital murder are present. However, in Harris County, the District Attorney’s office has a policy of charging defendants with the highest level crime for which all the elements are met. As of now, the prosecutor for this case is following that policy. (Houston Chronicle)

Adult or Juvenile: A Critical Decision

If this girl is not tried as an adult, but instead tried as a juvenile, then the maximum sentence she can receive is 40 years in prison. Tex. Family Code § 54.04(3)(a)(i). She would be sent to a TYC facility until the age of 19. (Overview of TYC) After turning 19, she would then be transferred to the adult prison system to finish the remaining 35 years of her sentence. If given the maximum 40 years, she would leave prison at the age of 54. In determining whether to waive original jurisdiction and transfer the girl to the adult criminal court, the Judge should look at several factors according to Tex. Family Code § 54.02(f):

(1) whether the alleged offense was against person or property, with greater weight in favor of transfer given to offenses against the person;

(2) the sophistication and maturity of the child;

(3) the record and previous history of the child; and

(4) the prospects of adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of the rehabilitation of the child by use of procedures, services, and facilities currently available to the juvenile court.

“This is a very, very serious offense,” Thomas said to the girl. “But this is not permanent,” he said. “Your detention can be re-evaluated again in 10 days. So remember, we’ll be watching very closely to see if you behave appropriately.”(Houston Chronicle Article).

(e) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall order the child released from detention unless it finds that:

(1) he is likely to abscond or be removed from the jurisdiction of the court;
(2) suitable supervision, care, or protection for him is not being provided by a parent, guardian, custodian, or other person;
(3) he has no parent, guardian, custodian, or other person able to return him to the court when required;
(4) he may be dangerous to himself or may threaten the safety of the public if released; or
(5) he has previously been found to be a delinquent child or has previously been convicted
of a penal offense punishable by a term in jail or prison and is likely to commit an offense if released.

Roper v. Simmons and the Moral Culpability of a 14 Year Old Girl

[T]he Thompson plurality stressed that“[t]he reasons why juveniles are not trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of an adult also explain why their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.”Id., at 835, 108 S.Ct. 2687. According to the plurality, the lesser culpability of offenders under 16 made the death penalty inappropriate as a form of retribution, while the low likelihood that offenders under 16 engaged in “the kind of cost-benefit analysis that attaches any weight to the possibility of execution” made the death penalty ineffective as a means of deterrence. Id., at 836-838, 108 S.Ct. 2687

[A]s any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies respondent and his amici cite tend to confirm, “[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.”

Capital murder in Texas is reserved for the most severe forms of murder. It carries with it the two most severe penalties in our criminal justice system. Although Roper was about the death penalty specifically, the Supreme Court makes important points about how we punish children under the age of 18. A 14 year old girl has a lot of life left to live. This makes a life sentence even that much more severe and that much more important to diligently apply in a fair and just way.

To be continued…

The events in Baytown at this junior high school is truly a tragedy. A newborn baby has been killed by what looks to be the actions of his young mother. The fate of that baby was in his mother’s hands that day, and now her fate is in our hands. As a society we must now decide what should be done. What eventually is done will reflect upon us as a society. The judicial process is really only just beginning for this girl and there is a long way left to go.

References:

Kent Greenawalt, Punishment 3 Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice 1282 (Joshua Dressler, Editor-in-Chief 2d ed. 2002, 1286-1287 in Joshua Dressler et al., Cases and Materials on Criminal Law 32, 36, 39 (3d ed.) 2003.

Michael S. Moore, The Moral Worth of Retribution Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions: New Essays in Moral Psychology (Ferdinand Shoeman, ed. 1987), 179-182 in Joshua Dressler et al., Cases and Materials on Criminal Law 32, 36, 39 (3d ed.) 2003.

On June 18, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Herbert Kohl (D-WI) introduced legislation to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), S. 3155. This much anticipated bill would reform and strengthen juvenile justice in a number of areas, including in cases of youth who come in contact with law enforcement and who have histories of abuse or neglect.

The bill urges states to make key improvements to juvenile justice systems, would prioritize and fund mental health and drug treatment for juvenile offenders, and encourages states to further address the overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. The legislation supports the efforts of states that attempt to comply with the core requirements of JJDPA by making funds available through improvement grants to help bring states into compliance with the law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to take up this legislation soon after the July 4 break. When a companion bill will be introduced in the House is not clear.

If you had visited the juvenile lockup in Pima County a decade ago — at the height of the adult-time-for-adult-crime campaign — you’d have seen young people sleeping in the cafeteria because of overcrowding. If you’d visited five years ago, you’d have seen nearly 200 juveniles held each day.
If you visited on Monday, you would have counted 78. In annual numbers, there were almost 3,500 youths detained in Pima County in 2003, a number that plummeted to 2,583 last year and is still dropping. In year four of a wide-scale transformation of Pima County’s juvenile-justice system, troubled kids are being diverted into other alternatives.

In recent years, the Children’s Defense Fund has received horrifying reports of the physical and sexual abuse of children and teens in juvenile correctional facilities. There are accounts of children being forced to eat their own vomit, of children being left naked for weeks in small isolation cells with nothing but a hole in the floor for a toilet, and of children being hog-tied–placed face down on the floor with their shackled hands and feet drawn together–for 12 or 13 hours. We have learned of many disturbing accounts of boys and girls being sexually abused and of some dying while in the custody of the state juvenile justice system.

This nationwide abuse of incarcerated youths is a moral outrage. One need only look to the recent scandals plaguing the Texas Youth Commission and Mississippi’s Columbia Training School for evidence of how vulnerable incarcerated youths are to being abused. A recent Associated Press survey found more than 13,000 claims of abuse were identified in juvenile correction centers around the country from 2004 through 2007. Many experts feel that this number represents significant underreporting. In July 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report declaring that state-operated juvenile facilities had the highest rates of alleged staff sexual misconduct when compared to state and federal prisons. Youths detained in adult jails are also at high risk of becoming victims of physical and sexual assault.

Despite these disturbing facts, federal law places a significant burden on the thousands of incarcerated children and youths that face abusive conditions of confinement. In 1996, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to limit the number of “frivolous” prisoner lawsuits. The stated goal of the measure was to “help restore balance to prison conditions litigation and ensure that Federal Court Orders are limited to remedying actual violations of prisoners’ rights.” One of the PLRA’s provisions prohibits prisoners from filing lawsuits for mental or emotional injury without demonstrating a “physical injury.” And prisoners must exhaust all administrative remedies before they can file a suit in federal court. The law also put restrictions on attorneys’ fees in prisoner cases. The effect of these provisions has been to reduce the number of prisoner abuse complaints that reach federal courts. The “success” of the PLRA, however, comes with problems as civil liberties and youth advocates charge that the act’s requirements pose insurmountable barriers to adults and youths filing legitimate claims in federal court.

There are good reasons why children and teens should be excluded from the requirements of the PLRA. First and foremost, children do not file frivolous lawsuits. Many incarcerated children and teens lack adequate legal representation to assist them if they allege abuse or violation of other rights. Children and teens are far less capable than adults of following the difficult and often convoluted administrative processes they must adhere to in order to comply with the PLRA. Most importantly, it is unacceptable for children and youths to be forced to report abuse to either their abusers or subordinates of their abusers.

The law’s requirement that they exhaust all administrative remedies could mean a youth detainee would have to take her complaint to the prison guard who rapes her in hopes that the head of the detention center, who winks at the guard’s behavior, does something about it. Many youths fear or actually risk retaliation if they file an administrative complaint. The fact that most children and teens cannot overcome these hurdles effectively insulates correctional facilities from accountability for deplorable detention and correctional facility conditions.

On April 22, 2008, I submitted testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security urging the panel to take the necessary steps to exclude children and youths from the requirements of the PLRA. Passage of the Prison Abuse Remedies Act of 2007 (H.R. 4109) would do that and eliminate some of the barriers that prevent young people from accessing our federal courts for relief if they are abused behind bars.

We’ve all seen movies that depict the tenacious and savvy adult prison inmate who spends hours in the penitentiary library poring over law books. He constantly sends communications to the warden, penal officials and courts. It is unreasonable for our nation to expect the same from incarcerated children and teens. We must not look away while children and teens are abused. Allowing this abuse to persist unchecked contradicts the rehabilitative mandate set out for the juvenile justice system. It is impossible to expect incarcerated children and teens to be rehabilitated and become successful adults in these kinds of conditions. Our nation’s juvenile detention system is in desperate need of massive reform. Passing the Prison Abuse Remedies Act of 2007 would be a good start.

Source: Edelman, Marion Wright, “Congress Must Act to Protect Young Detainees from Abuse” (May 19, 2008). Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/congress-must-act-to-prot_b_102430.html

Abstract: Juvenile delinquency adjudications are increasingly considered to be criminal convictions for purposes of sentencing enhancement in subsequent adult proceedings, leading to a renewed call for extension of the right to a jury trial in the juvenile court so as to legitimize the use of adjudications. Such an extension is troubling, however, because regardless of the factfinder, it is improper to equate juvenile delinquency adjudications with criminal convictions for several reasons. First, the juvenile court remains distinct from the criminal court in its purpose and procedure. Second, the prevalence of juvenile pleas raises questions about whether juveniles defend against delinquency charges with the same vigor as they would against criminal charges. Finally, the necessity for a system of transfer into adult criminal court is questionable if the adjudications can ex post facto be considered convictions. Although fairness dictates that juvenile adjudications should not be considered convictions, if they are consistently used as such, the infancy defense should be available in the juvenile court.

Download the full article here: What’s in a Name? The Worrisome Interchange of Juvenile “Adjudications” with Criminal “Convictions” (.pdf)

Legislatures considering bills in Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, and California are attempting in part to balance the rehabilitative potential of young inmates with the emotional response of victims’ families who feel betrayed by the reversal under consideration. Likely to be a central part of the debate are the developmental differences between children and adults and the implications of Roper v. Simmons, a Supreme Court case which prohibited the application of the death penalty to minors on 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) grounds.

• Christian Science Monitor: States reconsider life behind bars for youth - With nearly 2,400 inmates sentenced to life as juveniles, the U.S. is the only nation imposing the mandate on children
• PBS: When Kids Get Life (watch the program online)
• Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children
• “Categorically Less Culpable: Children Sentenced to Life Without Possibility of Parole in Illinois” (.pdf)
• Compassion in Juvenile Sentencing Blog
• A statement on the issue of Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) from IllinoisVictims.org

Another notable aspect of the case, is the participation of a group of University of Texas law students, who filed the petition, along with other local lawyers, as part of that school’s Supreme Court clinic.

There’s a discussion started here on the Pittman v. South Carolina Topic on our Discussion Forum.

• University of Texas Law School: Law School Clinic Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Major Juvenile Justice Case
• University of Texas Law School: Download the U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Petition and appendix documents
• SCOTUSBlog: Long sentence for juvenile challenged
• Controversy Over Giving Teen Killers the Possibility of Parole?
• NY Times: Lifers as Teenagers, Now Seeking Second Chance
• Sentencing Law & Policy Blog: Evolving images of a killer and the evolving Eighth Amendment
• National Law Journal: Law school clinic asks high court to hear case of juvenile who killed at age 12