News Summary May 29 – June 11, 2010 Models for Change Mentioned The Herald-Review (IL)



Download 351.58 Kb.
Page6/6
Date15.03.2018
Size351.58 Kb.
#43158
1   2   3   4   5   6

The Advocate (LA)

By MICHELLE MILLHOLLON

June 9, 2010

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/95928019.html
A state Senate committee advanced legislation Tuesday that would make “sexting” punishable by at least 10 days in jail.
“Oh, I love this bill…I want to be a coauthor,” said state Sen. Yvonne Dorsey, D-Baton Rouge and chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary C.
However, other committee members said they plan to amend House Bill 1357 on the Senate floor.
“This is a crime of immaturity, silly youth, and you’re criminalizing it,” said state Sen. Conrad Appel, R-Metairie.
HB1357 takes aim at an “indecent visual depiction” that is transmitted by anyone under the age of 17. The transmissions are referred to as sexting.
HB1357’s sponsor, state Rep. Damon Baldone, said the practice qualifies as child pornography.
He said he wants to give judges the authority to charge youths with a lesser crime of sexting.
HB1357 would create the crime of sexting and provide for the criminal penalties.
The law only would apply to minors, who would face a minimum $100 fine and up to 30 days in jail for possessing or transmitting “an indecent visual depiction.”
Lane McNulty, a recent Tulane Law School graduate, told the committee that he researched sexting as a class assignment.
“It’s usually immaturity,” he said.
Appel, who attended the committee meeting with his 13-year-old daughter, said he had a huge problem with the bill. He said government should not insert itself between a family and a school by passing laws against “sexting” and “cyberbullying.”
Appel said he would introduce an amendment on the Senate floor that stipulates “family, then the school and then government.”
State Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, said a distinction should be made for the age of the culprit. He said there is a difference between a second-grader sending an explicit message and an eleventh-grader sending one.
Crowe said the eleventh-grader should know better.
He said he planned to amend the bill on the Senate floor to provide for a distinction among age groups.
State Sen. Robert Adley, R-Benton, said he was bothered by the minimum sentence in the bill. He said he wants the judge to have a choice as to whether to impose jail time.
Baldone, who is a lawyer, said the judge can suspend the sentence.
Adley said some judges still may take the law literally and impose a sentence.
The committee agreed to amend the bill to more clearly make the jail sentence optional.
HB1357 now advances to the full Senate.

Opinion: Questioning how well juvenile justice system works

The San Bernardino Sun (CA)

By Matthew House

June 9, 2010

http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_15263759
When a 16-year-old Apple Valley boy escaped from the Indio Juvenile Hall on May 9 and was shot by police the next day, it made me wonder how well the current juvenile justice system works.
While juvenile courts initially aimed to make society safer, the current trend seems to be to create the appearance of safety rather than achieving it.
The original juvenile court mission was clear: to help children in trouble.
As far back as 1847, John Augustus, a pioneer of juvenile probation, bailed 19 boys out of jail and checked in with the court periodically every few months to update the judge about the adolescents' progress. Before long, the boys were fully productive citizens, and the judge marveled at how well Augustus had rehabilitated those children. Rehabilitation works.
Around the turn of the 20th century, when juvenile courts were first founded in Chicago, Denver, and the cities to which the concept soon expanded, the existing system was ineffective at serving youth and keeping the community safe. A bold idea emerged as the framers of those original juvenile courts surmised, "If the current approach is not working, we need to do something different."

And they did. Rehabilitation replaced punishment, and treatment replaced incarceration. That paradigm shift ushered in a new era in which children were seen as vulnerable members of the community who needed help, not as criminals who deserved to be locked away.


That approach produced overwhelmingly positive results. Recidivism was practically zero, and the offenders' struggles became a thing of the past, rather than mistakes that would continue to brand them villains in a perpetual cycle of shame that gave them little incentive to change.
It would be tempting to assume that such a rehabilitative model meant allowing the offenders not to be held accountable for their actions, but exactly the opposite is true. Rehabilitation acknowledges that if society is truly looking out for its best interests and its long-term safety, working to prevent future criminal behavior is essential.
When a juvenile offender is reintegrated into the community after a year being counseled, treated, and taught, the community is safer than it would be if that same delinquent youth were incarcerated for five years and released with no preparation to respect himself and society and to avoid repeating the same behavior. In Missouri, for example, only 8 percent of juvenile delinquents return to the justice system within three years; the national average is over 50 percent.
As juvenile detention can cost over $60,000 per year, it is not surprising that incarceration is seven times more expensive than rehabilitation, in addition to being far less effective. Because today's system is not committed to rehabilitating youth, many teens scorn society even more than before they went into the "correctional" facility. Society is no safer if an escaped youth (or one released normally) re-enters society with no additional foundation to practice good values.
The founders of the original juvenile courts would be appalled to know that authorities today are locking up youth without rehabilitating them, and shooting them rather than helping them.
When he was shot, the Apple Valley teen, according to reports, was on a roof with no one else in proximity to him. Presumably, no one had been hurt, and no one was about to get hurt - unless, of course, you count the vulnerable youth who needed the cops' help rather than their bullets.
The juvenile justice system, by wandering away from its noble roots, is failing not only the youth it is supposed to serve but also the community whose safety continues to be in jeopardy.
Matthew M. House, the chief facilitator of Juvenile Justice Month in September 2010, is a divorce and family law mediator in private practice in Portland, Ore.


Editorial: Real Justice for Juveniles

The New York Times

June 11, 2010



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11fri3.html
Gov. David Paterson of New York has sent the Legislature a juvenile justice bill that would achieve two urgently important goals. It would improve the quality of the leadership and care in the state’s often dangerous and inhumane juvenile facilities. And it would ensure that only children who need to be institutionalized — because they present a risk to the public — end up in the facilities.
Albany’s lawmakers must finally stand up to unions that are more interested in preserving jobs than in doing what is best for children.
The argument for closing down the worst facilities and treating low-risk children in their home communities is irrefutable. In a report last year, the Justice Department found that young people in state detention facilities were frequently hit and abused; emotionally disturbed children rarely got the help they needed. Governor Paterson’s juvenile justice task force found that more than half the children sent to these facilities were guilty of minor, nonviolent infractions.
In addition to the emotional toll on young people, the cost of institutionalization is prohibitive: as much as $200,000 per child, per year. That is more than 10 times the cost of successful local programs that provide monitoring, guidance and help to troubled families.
Governor Paterson’s bill seeks to fix this broken system. It would create an independent office to investigate the state’s facilities and recommend ways to improve residential care. It would allow the state to seek out and hire the best qualified directors for juvenile facilities. Current law requires that they be chosen from the ranks of people who already work within the system.
Perhaps most important, it would seek to limit the number of children who are sent away. It would bar family court judges from placing young people in state facilities unless they have been convicted of violent felonies, sex offenses or are found to present a public safety risk.
Gladys Carrión, Governor Paterson’s, commissioner of the Office of Children and Family Services, is rightly committed to closing empty, unneeded facilities and is a strong advocate of community-based programs. More than a dozen have been closed in the last three years, for an estimated savings of about $30 million. There are still another 26 facilities that hold about 730 young people.
They employ around 1,900 people at an estimated annual cost of about $190 million.
By rights, the state should have used the $30 million it has already saved by closing facilities to help finance new community-based programs. It passed on only about $5 million, while the rest went into the general fund. It will have to put a lot more money into community programs for this new system to work.
The unions are already fighting the Carrión effort and will fight this bill, too. Governor Paterson and legislative leaders will need to push back even harder. New York cannot keep paying for a juvenile justice system that is so clearly failing.






Download 351.58 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page