raise the age combined concurrence materials sept 2015
DESCRIPTION
Raise the Age Combined Concurrence Materials Sept 2015TRANSCRIPT
1
September 2015
Proposed Concurrence with
In June 2015, LWVNYS convention delegates approved a state board recommended program item to conduct a post-‐convention concurrence with portions of Juvenile Justice position. Concurrence is defined as agreement by League members with a position on an issue reached by a small group of members or by another League. Based on LWVUS precedent, it is
-‐stateposition upon which it is based. See Appendix A for more information on concurrence policy and procedure. Brief Overview: Typically the criminal law treats children differently than it treats adults. New York is the only state other than North Carolina that prosecutes ALL youth 16 years of age and older as adults. New York is one of only two states in the country that have not adopted laws which reflect brain development research and science which has found that the human brain is not fully formed until the age of 26. Further, New York allows children as young as 7 years old to be arrested and charged with acts of juvenile delinquency. Research has shown:
and adolescents lack the ability to focus on the consequences of their behavior. Because the adolescent brain is still developing, the character, personality traits and behavior
of adolescents are highly receptive to change; adolescents respond well to interventions, learn to make responsible choices, and are likely to grow out of negative or delinquent behavior.
In January of 2014 a Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice appointed by Governor Cuomo to make recommendations on how New York could raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction issued a Final Report in January 2015 with 38 concrete recommendations for reforming the
2
youth justice system. These recommendations are based on the acceptance of the basic premise that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised and that young persons accused of criminal behavior should be treated differently than adult offenders. Based on these findings, the Governor pushed for a comprehensive legislative package in the 2015 legislative session designed to re-‐frame the way young people are treated by our criminal justice system. Another proposal was also introduced in the Assembly. The legislature approved the allocation of funds to implement the principles of the proposals, but the legislature adjourned without passage of either proposal. Because LWVNYS lacked an applicable position, we could not advocate for or against these proposals. Context of existing New York State and LWVUS League Positions In New York, we have positions that address treatment of those who are taken into the criminal justice system but our positions do not address the concerns of the impact of the justice system on children directly. For example, the position on Pre-‐Trial Procedures provides that the rights of defendants should be protected at every stage of a criminal proceeding, including the pre-‐arraignment period. This principle has particular resonance in the juvenile justice system since for historical reasons juveniles actually possess fewer rights than adults accused of crimes. The two positions that most closely touch upon the issues of juvenile justice are Bail and Alternatives to Incarceration. Finally, there is the overarching League principle that no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination. (http://lwv.org/content/principles) Both the Ohio League and the NYS Commission report have identified ways in which many juvenile justice laws have discriminatory impacts on racial minorities. Thus, existing positions appear to be inadequate to a thorough, considered and knowledgeable undertaking of analysis of proposed reforms. No position addresses the core issue of the current proposals, which is to raise the age of criminal responsibility in New York State. If we reach concurrence with portions of the LWV Ohio sition on juvenile justice, we will be able to have a voice in the discussion of the Raise the Age proposals. Ohio League Studies/Action on Juvenile Justice LWV Ohio conducted a full study and several updates on Juvenile Justice and arrived at a broad and comprehensive Juvenile Justice position. Paramount is the principle that children under
relate to their stage of development, that the purpose of juvenile justice should be rehabilitation, and that the legal rights of juveniles should be protected.
3
Proposed Concurrence The LWV Ohio position is quite comprehensive and specific. (See Appendix H) for discussion of the Ohio Studies and the complete position.) In contrast to the practice of LWVNYS, the Ohio position details much of the suggested implementation of the position in concrete terms. Our positions are generally phrased more broadly to allow flexibility in responding to specific legislation as it is introduced. Thus, we are proposing a concurrence with only portions of the Ohio position. The portions listed below will cover the specifics of the legislative packages proposed during the last legislative session, but are flexible enough to cover future legislative proposals.
1. Children under the age of 18 are not adults and their treatment within the juvenile justice and criminal court system should relate to their stage of development.
2. Children should not be held in adult jails. 3. Rehabilitation is the purpose of the juvenile justice system. 4. The legal rights of children should be protected.i
If the concurrence is adopted, these principles will form our position on Juvenile Justice.
Arguments in favor of concurrence The underlying premise of the proposed position is that children are not adults. This premise is based on accepted scientific
Over the last 15 years, an uncontroverted body of research has emerged demonstrating that the brain does not reach maturation until early adulthood, with certain types of adult cognitive abilities not fully developed until the mid-‐20s. The differences between adolescents and adults can be categorized into three important areas: self-‐regulation, particularly in emotionally charged contexts; sensitivity to peer influence and immediate rewards; and ability to make decisions that require an orientation toward the future.
The existence of these differences in the way children and adults think, act, and react make it inappropriate for society to respond the anti-‐social behavior of children in the same way as it responds to anti-‐social behavior of adults. Notably, this science was recognized and relied upon in 2002 when LWV Ohio updated its position, demonstrating that this study was at the forefront of up-‐to-‐date thinking on the issue. The US Supreme Court recently considered the propriety of criminal justice responses to actions of persons under the age of 18 in three cases. In these cases, it found that the diminished culpability made the imposition of the death penalty on those under 18 at the time of the criminal act and imposition of a prison term of life without the possibility for parole unconstitutional for both non-‐homicide and homicide offenders, noting, in the last case, that
4
juvenile omore amenable to rehabilitation than adults Thus the im would bring New York State up-‐to-‐date in the current thinking about -‐ juvenile justice. The fact that New York is presently an outlier in this regard is not controlling, but should be seriously considered in framing policy on the treatment of young people. Adoption of this concurrence would allow LWVNYS to be part of the conversation. Further, the proposed position is in accordance with our position on Alternatives to Incarceration, which promotes the utilization of alternative dispositions for criminal conduct over a system that favors incarceration. We have, for a long time, disfavored incarceration as the default response to criminal conduct, and have developed standards for evaluating programs directed at rehabilitation rather than punishment as the preferred response to criminal behavior. Arguments against the concurrence There are those who say that people should be punished for their criminal acts no matter what their age. raise the agewould endanger public safety, overburden the Family Court system and cost too much. These arguments have been heard in this state also. On April 14, 2015 Tioga County legislators unanimously agreed that the cost of either of the two Raise the Age proposals now under consideration would be too much for the county to handle. ii Senator Bonacic has released a YouTube video which, while allowing for the possibility that the age should be raised for some children who engage in minor forms of criminal conduct, opines that for those who commit serious crimes, they should do the time, regardless of age.iii According to a report in the Daily News, former Senate Deputy GOP leader Thomas Libous (R-‐Binghamton) said he was open to the proposal but added that it was a sensitive issue for lawmakers because of the violent nature of some youth crimes. Senator Martin Golden of Brooklyn, another Republican and a former New York City police officer, commented the most heinous crimes are committed by kids who are 16 and 17. iv Results of Raise the Age Legislation in other states With respect to the con arguments based on dangers to public safety and cost concerns, results of actual experience with these laws show these fears to be unfounded. In the two states that have most recently enacted these laws, evidence shows that this legislation does not result in reduced public safety, and there are indications that cost savings can also be realized. In Connecticut a study on the effect of raise the age that recidivism rates were significantly higher for convicted youth processed in the adult system, than those who had been processed
5
through the juvenile court system. Measured by rates of recidivism, then, the reform enhanced public safety. The results in Illinois have been the same: a report detailing the impact of Raise the Age legislation found that there was no increase in crime and public safety was not otherwise adversely affected.
i http://www.lwvohio.org/assets/attachments/file/Juvenile%20Justice(1).pdf ii http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Legislators-‐Raise-‐the-‐Age-‐campaign-‐will-‐cost-‐taxpayers-‐299763801.html.
iii http://www.nysenate.gov/video/2015/apr/20/senator-‐bonacic-‐discusses-‐raise-‐age-‐legislation. iv http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cuomo-‐aims-‐hike-‐age-‐teens-‐adults-‐article-‐1.1571625
Appendix A
Concurrence policies and procedures
What concurrence is:
CONCURRENCE is defined by LWVUS LEAGUE BASICS as:
Agreement by League members with a position on an issue reached by a small group of members or by another League.
-‐
more information on concurrence policy and procedure.
Appendix B
Current case processing for 16-‐ and 17-‐year-‐olds, youth processed as juvenile offenders or as juvenile delinquents, and youth processed for behaviors that are not criminal in nature (PINS).
PINS Juvenile Delinquent Juvenile Offender Adult
Age <18 16+
Offense Type offenses
Offense that would be a crime if over age 15
Serious offenses, defined by penal law
Criminal offense or violation
Diversion Options
petition diversion
many cases No opportunity prior to court involvement
No opportunity prior to court involvement
Jurisdiction
Family Court
Family Court
Criminal court with option of Family Court removal
Criminal court
Detention
Youth facility Youth facility
Youth facility secure only
County jail
Confinement
Local DSS custody (voluntary agency(VA))
Local DSS custody (VA) OCFS custody (VA or range of OCFS security)
OCFS center
County jail < 1 yr Prison 1 year+
Criminal Record
N/A
No
Yes sealed if disposed through acquittal, dismissal, a violation, or youthful offender status
Yes sealed if disposed through acquittal, dismissal, a violation, or youthful offender status
Youthful Offender Status Option
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Appendix C
History of Juvenile Justice in New York and other States
Many states, including New York and Ohio, began addressing juvenile justice in the early nineteenth century. The general progression was to begin by taking steps to house juveniles in separate facilities; to handle cases involving juvenile offenders in separate courtrooms in the criminal courthouse, and then in separate courts, and finally to decriminalize youthful offenses. New York first established a facility to house juvenile offenders in 1824, separate courts to handle juvenile offenders cases began at the turn of the century and, by 1924, independent juvenile courts were established in the entire state.
In 1909, the legislature decriminalized most youthful offenses, and began using the term fenders which, if committed by an
adult, would be crimes. That law also prohibited the sentencing of a child under 16 to an adult prison unless the charged with an offense punishable by death.
By 1925, every state but two had established its own juvenile courts. Ohio was one of the states who, by the first quarter of the twentieth century had established separate juvenile courts, based on the philosophy that children should be treated differently from adults, and that the state, under the principles of parens patriae, was required to act as a wise and kindly parent toward those children who are brought before it, often under procedures which conflicted with understood principles of constitutional protections such as the right to counsel, right to a jury trial and protection against self-‐incrimination.
With respect to the age at which persons would be treated as adults, New York, like most other states initially set the maximum age of Juvenile Offenders at 16. By 1927, however, the majority of states, following the lead of Illinois, had raised that age, often to 18. New York did not follow suit although there were calls for such action from youth advocates and NYS crime commissions. At the 1961 Constitutional Convention, from which the Family Court Act emerged, the age of juvenile jurisdiction was discussed but not changed. A 1963 study failed to issue recommendations on the issue, deferring the matter to further study.
THE FAMILY COURT ACT, which still forms the core of Family Court procedures, created a court to manage all manner of issues affecting the family, such as juvenile delinquency, neglected children.
After the there began a pattern of harsher treatment of juvenile offenders. In the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1976, New York modified the parens patriae philosophy by requiring delinquency adjudications to consider not only the best interests of the juvenile, but also the need to protect the community. The legislation also introduced a new class of crime, known as a Designated Felony Act (DFA), which increased the possible penalties for some juvenile
with the enactment in 1978 of the THE JUVENILE OFFENDER ACT which created a new category of offender -‐-‐ which consisted of 14-‐ or 15-‐year-‐olds who were found to have committed any of 14 specified violent crimes, and 13-‐year-‐olds responsible for second-‐degree murder. Unless mitigating factors were found that would justify sending these cases to Family Court, these Juvenile Offenders were treated as adults and processed in criminal court as adults. If a youth is convicted in criminal court as a Juvenile Offender, New York Penal Law specifies sentencing ranges that are less severe than for adults but more severe than those available for juveniles convicted of DFAs in Family Court. Juvenile offenders are placed in secure juvenile facilities, and may be kept there until they turn 21, at which point they must be transferred to adult prisons (assuming they have time remaining on their sentences).
An anomaly in the trend of lowering the age at which young persons were held responsible for their actions was enacted in 1978 which raised the age for PINS cases to eighteen. Recent reforms in the last several years, many of which were enacted as funding initiatives, have been directed at the facilities at which young people are housed, support for community based services, an initiative which advanced the placement of youth close to their homes, and use of risk assessment tools to determine how to handle juveniles introduced into the system.
Appendix D
PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE It is critically important for New York State to implement these reforms. Supported unanimously by this Commission, these recommendations would move New York State from last in the nation on justice for 16-‐ and 17-‐ year-‐olds to the lead. While processing most offenses committed by 16-‐ and 17-‐year-‐olds in Family Court would bring New York in line with national practice, the complete package of proposed reforms would do much more. It would: reduce crime victimization; provide meaningful opportunity for a life without the stigma of a criminal record for adolescents who turn away from crime; eliminate the disproportionate incarceration of 16-‐ and 17-‐year-‐olds of color in adult jails and prisons; reserve the juvenile placement system for only those few young people who present significant risk to public safety; and create therapeutic out-‐of-‐home placement settings for older adolescents. Given this range of benefits, the State should provide the financial investment to make these recommendations a reality.
The recommendations contained in this report are as follows:
1. Raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18, consistent with other states.
2. Raise the lower age of juvenile jurisdiction to twelve, except for homicide offenses, which should be raised to ten.
3. The Governor should appoint one or more individuals with expertise in juvenile justice and a commitment to these reforms to help coordinate their implementation.
4. Expand to 16-‐ and 17-‐year-‐olds the current juvenile practice regarding parental notification of arrest and the use of Office of Court Administration-‐approved rooms for questioning by police.
5. Expand the use of videotaping of custodial interrogations of 16-‐ and 17-‐year olds for felony offenses.
6. Mandate diversion attempts for low-‐risk (per risk assessment) misdemeanor cases except where probation finds no substantial likelihood that youth will benefit from diversion in the time remaining for adjustment or if time for diversion has expired and the youth has not benefited from diversion services.
7. Expand categories of cases eligible for adjustment to allow for adjustment in designated
felony cases and Juvenile Offender cases removed to Family Court, with a requirement for court approval for all Juvenile Offender cases and if the youth is accused of causing physical injury in a designated felony case. Revise the criteria for determining suitability for adjustment to include risk level and the extent of physical injury to the victim.
8. Create the capacity and a process for victims to obtain orders of protection without the delinquency case being filed in court.
9. Allow two additional months for probation diversion (beyond 120 days) if a documented barrier to diversion exists or a change in service plan is needed.
10. Establish a continuum of diversion services that range from minimal intervention for low-‐risk youth to evidence-‐based services for high-‐risk youth.
11. Establish family engagement specialists to facilitate adjustment.
12. Expand Family Court jurisdiction to include youth ages 16 and 17 charged with non-‐violent felonies, misdemeanors, and harassment or disorderly conduct violations. Provide access to bail for 16-‐and 17-‐year-‐ olds in Family Court and allow Family Court judges to ride circuit to hear cases, at the discretion of the Office of Court Administration.
13. Begin judicial processing in criminal court for current Juvenile Offender crimes as well as all violent felony offenses; all homicide offenses; Class A felonies; sexually motivated felonies; crimes of terrorism; felony vehicular assaults; aggravated criminal contempt; and conspiracy to commit any of these offenses and tampering with a witness related to any of these offenses for 16-‐ and 17-‐year-‐old offenders.
14. Apply current standards for removal from criminal to Family Court of Juvenile Offender cases to those cases against 16-‐ and 17-‐year-‐olds that would originate in criminal court, except for subdivision two of second degree robbery (a Juvenile Offender crime) and the Violent Felony Offenses that are not Juvenile Offender crimes. For these latter offenses, create a new rebuttable presumption for removal to Family Court. Such cases would be removed to Family Court unless the prosecutor demonstrates that criminal prosecution is in the interests of justice, considering the current criteria for removing a case to Family Court and whether the youth either played a primary role in commission of the crime or aggravating weapon, are present.
15. Create new Youth Parts, with specially trained judges, in criminal court for processing those cases against 16-‐ and 17-‐year-‐olds and other Juvenile Offenders who remain in criminal court.
16. Clothe judges in criminal court Youth Parts with concurrent criminal court and Family Court jurisdiction to allow Youth Parts to retain cases removed to Family Court under the new presumption for removal and to handle them under the Family Court Act where appropriate.
17. Provide juvenile probation case planning and services for cases pending in criminal court.
18. Prohibit confinement of any minor in an adult jail or prison and, to the extent funding and operational considerations allow, permit youth to remain in youth settings until age 21.
19. Reduce current unnecessary use of detention and placement through:
a. Prohibition of detention and placement for youth adjudicated for first-‐time or second-‐time misdemeanors that do not involve harm to another person, and who are low-‐risk, except where the court finds a specific imminent threat to public safety;
b. Prohibition of placement for technical probation violations alone, except where 1) the court finds a specific imminent threat to public safety or 2) the youth is on probation for a violent felony offense and the use of graduated sanctions has been exhausted without successful compliance; and
c. Implementation of weekend arraignment for Family Court cases statewide where adult arraignment already occurs.
20. Establish Family Support Centers in high-‐PINS referral localities to provide more robust community-‐based PINS services and then eliminate detention and placement of PINS.
21. Use statutory Juvenile Offender and Youthful Offender sentences for offenses committed at ages 16 and 17 that are sentenced in criminal court, except for Class A felony offenses that are not Juvenile Offender crimes. For Class B violent felony offenses, the court should have statutory discretion to impose a longer adult sentence if the prosecution shows aggravating circumstances, including severity of injury or gravity of risk to public safety.
22. Use determinate sentencing for youth sentenced under Juvenile Offender or Youthful Offender statutes, including 16-‐ and 17-‐year-‐olds.
23. Develop a continuum of effective community-‐based services at the local level to be used by probation, including expansion of JRISC, to maintain more high-‐risk youth in the community and reduce recidivism.
24. Develop residential facilities using best practices models to support the needs of older adolescents, including:
a. For newly required placement capacity, establish a network of new, small facilities with staffing and programming consistent with the Missouri approach;
b. Expansion of the August Aichhorn RTF model for youth with mental health disorders; and
c. Programs that meet the specialized needs of LGBT youth.
25. Reduce recidivism among the 18 24 population in the criminal justice system by:
a. Using data-‐driven, risk-‐based methodology to prioritize DOCCS inmates aged 18-‐24 for effective programs;
b. Using technology to expand educational opportunities for 18-‐21-‐year-‐olds in DOCCS custody; and
c. Considering use of discrete housing units for youth transitioning from juvenile facilities to DOCCS and for older adolescents at DOCCS
26. Establish and implement new OCFS regulations requiring evidence-‐based risk-‐needs-‐responsivity (RNR) framework for case planning and management in private and state-‐operated placement.
27. Require that youth sentenced in the criminal courts and released from an OCFS facility receive post-‐release supervision from OCFS, instead of DOCCS, to facilitate better re-‐entry planning and implementation.
28. Replicate the Monroe juvenile re-‐entry task force in counties with highest juvenile case volume.
29. Require reasonable efforts to establish at least one connection between placed youth and a supportive adult in the home community before leaving placement.
30. Expand availability of supportive housing for older youth at release.
31. Create a new presumption to grant Youthful Offender status in criminal cases against offenders who are under 21 if the youth has no previous felony finding. Allow the
presumption to be rebutted by the district attorney in the interest of justice. While Youthful Offender eligibility should be extended to 19-‐ and 20-‐ year-‐olds, current adult sentencing should be retained for 19-‐ and 20-‐year-‐old Youthful Offenders.
32. Require all accusatory instruments in Youthful Offender eligible cases, except sex offenses, to be filed as sealed instruments prior to trial.
33. Allow youth who receive Youthful Offender status on a drug offense to be eligible for conditional discharge as those adults who are convicted of these offenses are so eligible.
34. Allow violent felony Youthful Offender adjudication for anyone 16 or over to be used as a predicate in sentencing for subsequent violent felony charging and sentencing only.
35. Create the capacity to seal one conviction (excluding violent felonies, Class A felonies, homicides, and sex offenses) for crimes committed under age 21.
36. Create the capacity to seal one Juvenile Offender conviction (excluding Class A felonies, homicides and sex offenses) upon application to the court, if the person remains conviction-‐free for 10 years after release from confinement.
37. Allow any person whose conviction occurred prior to the effective date of the law passed to implement these reforms, and who would be otherwise eligible for a seal as described above, to apply to the Division of Criminal Justice Services to obtain that seal, with notice of that application to the district attorney and opportunity for the district attorney to require the seal request to be considered by the court in particularly egregious cases.
38. Automate information exchanges between entities necessary to ensure that juvenile records are destroyed as required by statute
Appendix F
Present Proposals
Last session there were two proposals on the table in Albany that proposed by the Governor and a legislative initiative. Both proposals reflect the findings of the NYS Commission that the implementation of the Raise the Age principles require a rather extensive overhaul of the juvenile justice system.
The basic framework of both proposals is a gradual shift of jurisdiction over 16 and 17 year olds from Criminal to Family Court for most, but not all crimes. Initial consideration of the most serious offenses remains in the criminal courts, but these cases will be handled in specialized Youth Parts under procedures which provide greater protections and eligibility for age-‐appropriate treatment.
The proposals require removal of all persons under the age of 18 from adult jails and prisons.
The proposals provide for greater opportunities for diversion from the court system and reduction in the number of youths in detention and placement, particularly for those children designated as PINS.
The proposals contain provisions to assist young people in going forward with their lives by increasing the categories of youth eligible for youthful-‐offender treatment, which does not end in a criminal conviction, and expungement of criminal records.
Although most stakeholders agree in principle with the Raise the Age legislation, these specific proposals are not without critics, whose assessments include beliefs that reforms should apply to all crimes, even the most serious, objection to the increased jurisdiction of the Family Court to cover charges of disorderly conduct, increase in the number of enumerated felonies which are defined as criminal acts prosecutable in criminal court, use of youthful offender dispositions as predicate offenses for future felonies.
Appendix G
League of Women Voters of New York State Positions
ALTERNATIVES TO BAIL Statement of Position
As announced by the State Board, December 1975 Assurance that a defendant will return for trial should be obtained through means other than bail, since bail is inherently discriminatory. Alternatives include expanded use of the appearance ticket, release on own recognizance, conditional or supervised release, and detention by written determination of the judge that there is no other alternative. and
ATI POSITION Statement of Position
As announced by the State Board, February 1993 Recognizing the enormous costs of state prisons and local jails, and the distressingly high rates of recidivism, the League of Women Voters of New York State, at its convention in1991, adopted a study of Alternatives to Incarceration. In the criminal justice system there is a need for a broad range of punishments less restrictive than incarceration. Prisons and jails must be viewed as a scarce and expensive resource to be utilized only when necessary. The current system wastes time, money, and human resources. The LWVNYS strongly supports the use of ATI for nonviolent offenders. There is a need for earlier, more effective intervention and, if applicable, treatment. Sanctions should be more innovative, constructive and less restrictive. Eligibility The League concurs with the American Bar Association Model Adult Community Corrections Act of February 1992. The following offender groups shall be eligible for sentencing to community-‐based sanctions: 1. Those convicted of misdemeanors; 2. Nonviolent felony offenders, including drug abusers and other offenders with special treatment needs; 3. Violators of parole, probation, and community corrections conditions whose violation conduct is either non-‐criminal or would meet eith er criterion (a) or (b) above had it been charged as a criminal violation; 4. Offenders who, although not eligible under criteria (a) through (c) above, are found by the court to be the type of individuals for whom such a sentence would be appropriate. In making such a determination, the judge shall consider factors that bear on the danger posed and the likelihood of recidivism by the offender, including but not limited to the following:
a. That the offender has a sponsor in the community; b. That the offender is employed or has enrolled in an educational or rehabilitative program; c. That the offender has not demonstrated a pattern of violent behavior and does not have a criminal record that indicates a pattern of violent offenses. Evaluation of individual offenders From the time of arrest, individual offenders should be carefully screened and matched with appropriate programs. In the screening process, the highest priorities are: 1. Public Safety 2. Rehabilitation of the offender, including treatment for substance abuse, education beginning with basic literacy skills, vocational responsibility training, and family intervention 3. Severity of the crime 4. Violence of the crime Additional factors to be considered are: 1. Victim satisfaction with sentence 2. Rate of failure to appear (FTA) in court of those in Pre-‐Trial Release programs compared with rate of FTA of those released on bail. The Criminal Justice Process: The LWVNYS strongly supports greater discretion in the use of alternatives at all stages of the criminal justice process; i.e., pre-‐trial, sentencing, and re-‐entry. To encourage use of ATIs: The League strongly supports: 1. Education of the public, legislators, and all personnel in the criminal justice system 2. Reform of drug laws 3. Repeal of the second felony offender law. The League also supports: 1. State funding incentives for ATI programs 2. Expansion of defender-‐based advocacy programs 3. Mandated consideration of least-‐restrictive sanctions, which should be documented in the pre-‐sentencing report. Additional factors to be considered are: 1. Previous criminal history 2. Ties to the community, including job and family 3. Deterrence of further criminal activity 4. Potential for restitution 5. Interest and willingness to take part in alternative program 6. Cost of program.
Evaluation of ATI programs: Evaluation of the effectiveness of an alternative program should include: 1. Rate of re-‐convictions of those who have completed the program 2. Rate of successful completions of the program 3. Cost of program v. cost of incarceration and other savings to community 4. Equal access to the program for all eligible offenders 5. Public confidence and community involvement. State legislation The League strongly favors state legislation supporting ATI programs. This legislation should include a Master Plan that provides:
1. Funding incentives for the use of ATI programs. 2. Evaluation of individual programs 3. Minimum standards in local program operations 4. Methods for encouraging community support.
In conclusion, the LWVNYS believes it is essential that there be long-‐term evaluation and sufficient funding of alternative programs. Finally, there is the overarching League principle, which states that no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination. Both the Ohio League and the NYS Commission report have identified ways in which many juvenile justice laws have discriminatory impacts on racial minorities.
Appendix H
Ohio Studies
The LWV of Ohio first adopted a position on the system of juvenile justice in 1973. That position at the time supported a 1969 revision to the Ohio law which was in keeping with the rehabilitative philosophy which was the prevailing attitude of the time.
The stated goals of the juvenile justice system were :
_
_ To protect the public interest in removing the consequences of criminal behavior and the taint of
criminality from children committing delinquent acts and to substitute therefore a program of
supervision, care, and rehabilitation;
_ To achieve the foregoing purposes, whenever possible, in a family environment, separating the child
from its parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the interests of public safety;
_
are assured of a fair hearing, and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and
enforced.
The League supported local treatment as a desirable alternative to large centralized institutions and the
development and use of local social service programs to provide appropriate treatment for unruly and
delinquent children and their families.
The League also supported local treatment as a desirable alternative to large centralized institutions and the development and use of local social service programs to provide appropriate treatment for unruly and delinquent children and their families.
In 1974 the League added to its position support for:
positive, individualized, humane treatment, the right to: bodily safety and integrity; freedom from physical and mental abuse; mental and physical health care; drug and alcohol treatment; education appropriate to a child's intellectual, emotional, and physical capacities;
access to the courts for enforcement of rights; and periodic review of placement and treatment. The League also supported standards relating to juvenile records which protect the offender from unnecessary consequences of criminal behavior and the taint of criminality; and provisions relating to the expungement of all juvenile records.
Further positions adopted in 1979 reflected member interest in limiting use of secure facilities and developing community services and nonsecure facilities as alternatives and included support for:
_ Individual evaluation of each case before the court.
_ "Least restrictive" concept in determining placement of children awaiting court action as well as after
_ Minimum standards for secure facilities that provide for:
a) Right to personal possessions, privacy, freedom of and from religion, personal communications, limitations and procedural requirements for discipline, grievance and appeal mechanisms, periodic review of placement, bodily safety.
b) Program: initial physical, mental, psychological evaluation; medical and dental care; recreation and exercise; education for individual needs; vocational training; psychiatric and psychological services; work-‐release and school release programs; follow up after release.
c) Staff: ratio of staff to youth, qualifications, supervision, and accountability.
Opposition to:
_ Placing unruly children in secure facilities (defined as those with architectural barriers).
_ Holding any children in adult jails.
In response to fears of rampant juvenile crime nearly every state, including Ohio, passed laws to handle more youth as adult criminals. The purpose of the Ohio juvenile justice system was changed from rehabilitation to offender accountability and protection of public safety; permitted commitment of 10 and 11 year old; blended youth and adult sentences and jury trials; broadened the scope of truancy laws broadened the scope of registration of sexual offenders.
In light of the changes in the law, in 2002 the Ohio league re-‐visited its positions to determine if league members wished to reaffirm them. The locals were asked to consider whether they wished to stand by the following statements:
1. Children under the age of 18 are not adults and that their treatment within the juvenile justice system should relate to their stage of development.
2. Children should not be held in adult jails.
3. The purpose of the juvenile system is rehabilitation.
4. Children's legal rights, including expungement of records, should be enforced.
5. State standards for detention facilities should be enforced.
In addition, areas of expansion of the existing positions were presented for consideration to the local leagues which included:
uses the resources of the extended community to give each individual child a continuum of care;
alternative educational services to address the specific and individual needs of children who do not succeed in traditional schools;
support for a restorative rather than retributive system of juvenile justice;
development of gender-‐specific services that offer programs directed at girls
the right of juveniles to equal and unbiased treatment regardless of race or ethnicity.
All of these expansions to the original position were adopted.
L W V N YS ST A T E W ID E C O N C URR E N C E O N R A ISE T H E A G E POSI T I O N
R EPO R T IN G SH E E T
NAME OF LEAGUE______________________________________________________ CONTACT: _____________________________________________________________
Please complete this concurrence form, submit it for board approval and forward it to the state L eague by January 1, 2016.
Concurrence Position: 1. Children under the age of 18 are not adults and their treatment within the juvenile justice and
criminal court system should relate to their stage of development. 2. Children should not be held in adult jails. 3. Rehabilitation is the purpose of the juvenile justice system. 4. The legal rights of children should be protected.
If the concurrence in adopted, these principles will form our position on Juvenile Justice.
Please check one of the following:
__________W e support the concurrence position on Juvenile Justice
__________W e oppose the concurrence position on Juvenile Justice.
Process by which this form was completed (board meeting, general membe rship meeting, polling of members, etc.). _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Comments: __________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Mail, Fax or Email completed form to
L W V N YS, 62 G rand St, A lbany, N Y 12207 Fax: 518-465-0812 Email: K [email protected] Questions: Call K atrina at 518-465-4162