News Summary May 29 – June 11, 2010 Models for Change Mentioned The Herald-Review (IL)
Download 351.58 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Chief defender plans changes The Standard Speaker (Hazleton)
- Editorial: Justice for juveniles The Philadelphia Inquirer
- Commentary: There can be no delay in restoring juvenile justice Commentary Sen. Lisa Baker Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
- Opinion: Young criminals, appropriate punishment The Philadelphia Daily News
- Kids need independent watchdog Allentown Morning Call
- Editorial - Kids for cash: Statewide reform is the only way to right this wrong Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- Holly Herman: To prevent corruption, juvenile courts should be open
The Patriot-News (Harrisburg) May 30, 2010 http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/05/juvenile_justice_blueprint_hel.html There is no doubt how devastating the “cash for kids” scandal has been for the families involved and for the reputation of our state’s entire juvenile justice system. A report released from the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice on Thursday should start the healing in that case and provide the blueprint for change that should assure that it never happens again in Pennsylvania. John Cleland, chairman of the 11-member commission that looked into the Luzerne County cases, made scathing remarks about what was allowed to go on in the county and his words are a lesson for us all. He slams former judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan for their part in the “cash for kids,” as they sent children and teens to certain juvenile facilities in exchange for kickbacks. But he added that prosecutors stood by without trying to change what was happening and the community on some level knew something was not right. The commission should be applauded for its tough words, hard work and thorough investigation of the misconduct. The report also provides an important list of 43 recommendations that touches all aspects of the juvenile justice system. Lawmakers already are rightfully promising to put some of them into legislation. The most important recommendations would mean that every juvenile who goes before the court has access to defense counsel, something many of the teens in Luzerne County did not. It also calls for mandatory ethics training for all county and appellate judges, which is a must. The report rightfully wants to see improvements to the oversight of judges and the accountability of the state Judicial Conduct Board, which has been criticized for not doing more when it was notified of problems in Luzerne County. However, we are disappointed that the group did not recommend more openness of juvenile court proceedings. After everything that happened in Luzerne County, it seems imperative to allow public access to these hearings. We also believe the commission should have recommended an office of ombudsman so that families with issues related to the juvenile justice system would have a set place to go for help. While we hope lawmakers look at these two areas as they weigh what should be changed with the juvenile justice system, we do not want to take away from the enormous amount of time and thoughtfulness that went into the 66-page commission report. All the members of the board should be commended for their dedication, and their recommendations will make the legal system we have in place for our children and teens much sounder in Luzerne County and throughout the state. Chief defender plans changes The Standard Speaker (Hazleton) By Michael P. Buffer May 30, 2010 http://standardspeaker.com/news/chief-defender-plans-changes-1.821535 Luzerne County Chief Public Defender Al Flora Jr. is reallocating resources in the office to improve legal representation of juveniles, but he isn't sure what the long-term cost will be and whether the changes can continue. Flora, who has been in charge of the office since longtime chief Basil Russin resigned March 17, said he is preparing a report for county commissioners on the office. The report should be done in a few weeks. "I am compiling for the commissioners a complete breakdown of our caseload and workload," Flora said. "It will give them a good understanding of what our needs are. That has never been done before. We are still trying to pull data on the operation of the whole office, so they'll have it in front of them, and they can make appropriate decisions on how to deal with this office." County Commissioner Chairwoman Maryanne Petrilla said she is pleased Flora is preparing a report on the office and is keeping commissioners informed of office issues. "Awesome," she said. "I think it is important that we do that going forward." A state panel charged with investigating the kids-for-cash scandal issued a report Thursday and concluded that former judge Mark A. Ciavarella, who presided over juvenile court for 12 years, was able to incarcerate juveniles at twice the state average, many on minor charges, in part because public defenders didn't object and paid little attention to juvenile court. Ciavarella and former judge Michael T. Conahan are accused of accepting $2.8 million in kickbacks for placing juveniles in two for-profit detention centers. Flora didn't want to respond to the report's findings on the office when Russin was in charge. The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice concluded that Russin, who resigned earlier this year in a pay dispute with the county commissioners, failed to properly supervise the assistant public defenders who appeared before Ciavarella. One assistant expressed concerns to Russin that more than one-half of the juveniles appearing before Ciavarella had no legal representation. "I said, we're not going to seek clients. And we don't have the time or the manpower to intervene," Russin told the commission last November. Flora, who is representing Ciavarella as a private defense attorney and was the first assistant public defender under Russin, said he didn't supervise assistant public defenders or handle juvenile cases when Russin was in charge. "My primary responsibility was for homicides and capital offenses," Flora said. Flora said the office is now willing to represent all juveniles and has ended a policy under Russin that used the income of a juvenile's parents to determine eligibility. The commission is recommending that all juveniles in the state be "deemed indigent for the purposes of appointment of counsel." "The process we're using of taking all kids and not considering the income of parents, it could drastically increase the caseload," Flora said. "It runs contrary to the way society works. Kids applying to college for grants, the parents' income is considered. What we are doing is something very different. Whether it continues in the long run we'll see." A single adult defendant can get a public defender with an annual income of less than $10,830, Flora said. The threshold for a defendant in a two-person family is $14,570. The public defender's office has an annual budget of $2 million and provides representation in about 5,000 cases a year. "We represent 85 (percent) to 95 percent of the criminal caseload," Flora said. The staff includes a chief, a first assistant, 21 assistant public defenders, a chief investigator, two investigators and six support staffers. In previous years, one assistant public defender handled juvenile cases, while also representing adults for the office. Flora said one assistant public defender, Cheryl Sobeski-Reedy, now works exclusively on juvenile cases. "We also freed up an investigator to assist her," Flora said. "And she follows the case all the way through." Reedy begins working on a juvenile case as soon as a juvenile is charged and detained, Flora said. Previously, a juvenile defender started working on a case at the adjudication stage. "We are taking a very proactive approach," he added. This year, the office could end up with 400 juvenile cases, Flora said. "In 2007, there were 245 juvenile applications," he said. "That's a small number in scheme of things, and of that, I don't know how many were turned down." Flora added that the juvenile court caseload is down because school districts and police are bringing fewer cases to juvenile court. The annual caseload for juvenile court used to be more than 800, he said. The public defender's office represented 10 percent to 20 percent of the cases in which juveniles had attorneys from 2003 to 2008, the commission report said Editorial: Justice for juveniles The Philadelphia Inquirer May 31, 2010 http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100531_Editorial__Justice_for_juveniles.html#axzz0phoIpb00 Now that a state panel has reported its findings from investigating Luzerne County's "kids for cash" scandal, Gov. Rendell and court officials should act swiftly to implement needed reforms. The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was created last August to look into charges that two juvenile-court judges took millions of dollars in kickbacks to place young offenders in for-profit detention centers. Federal authorities charged Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. with racketeering. Conahan has agreed to plead guilty, while Ciavarella awaits trial. The scandal led the state Supreme Court to toss out thousands of juvenile convictions. The commission cited a lack of oversight in the state court system. It said corruption in Luzerne County had existed for years, and that prosecutors, public defenders, and probation officials shared responsibility for allowing the situation to go on for so long. Among other things, the panel said the Judicial Conduct Board must be more diligent in investigating and prosecuting misconduct by judges, and that efforts must increase to ensure juveniles have legal representation. The report gives Rendell and Chief Justice Ronald Castille the base they need to launch reform. Commentary: There can be no delay in restoring juvenile justice Commentary Sen. Lisa Baker Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre) By Sen. Lisa Baker June 1, 2010 http://www.timesleader.com/opinion/commentary/There_can_be_no_delay_in_restoring_juvenile_justice_Commentary_Sen__Lisa_Baker_05-31-2010.html Sen. Lisa Baker, a Lehman Township resident, is a Republican state senator serving the 20th District. For information, visit www.senatorbaker.com. PENNSYLVANIANS owe sincere thanks to Judge John Cleland and the members of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice for providing dedicated and diligent service, for conducting a thorough and no-holds-barred inquiry, and for assembling such an extensive and well-reasoned series of recommendations for reform. Thanks are also due to those people who came forward with candid accounts of what went wrong, and to the individuals and groups who submitted reform recommendations to the commission. The Interbranch Commission has shown the laudable result that occurs when publicly spirited individuals take seriously the charge of righting incredible wrongs. They handled a difficult assignment, unlike anything in our state’s experience, with intelligence, integrity and determination. Even though the juvenile justice system across Pennsylvania is outstanding in many respects, the complete collapse in Luzerne County makes it imperative to add safeguards. The recommendations address issues we had immediately identified, and many others that surfaced during the course of the investigation. Corruption, indifference and failure touched every aspect of the local juvenile justice system, and reached beyond into the schools and the community. The recommendations necessarily include upgrading standards in every part of the process. This report is a clear call to action. None of this can be treated casually, in the sense of “it might be nice to do something someday if we have time or find money or the spirit still moves us.” All three branches of state government are put on notice that substantial, specific steps must be taken to remedy injustice, restore public confidence and prevent a future perversion of justice. Ultimate responsibility for the juvenile justice system rests with the state Supreme Court under our unified judicial system. Several of the key recommendations will require action by the Court, and it is hoped it will act directly and decisively. Where the recommendations require legislative action, I will introduce the bills needed to spur debate and action. There are other senators with long-established interest and involvement in judicial issues, and their participation and leadership will be helpful as well. The responsibility for providing fair and effective justice is delineated in the state constitution. There is no asterisk indicating these obligations are suspended during times of substantial budget deficit. A large deficit in quality justice is every bit as consequential and harmful as a large deficit in state revenue. For the money needed for training, oversight, advocacy and compensation, we will look to federal sources, foundations, fee increases and funds established for related purposes. The commission’s proceedings were open and accessible to encourage public participation and invite public input. The report has been crafted to help the public understand the problems, and to enable citizens to join in the effort to compel action by the three branches of state government. Opinion: Young criminals, appropriate punishment The Philadelphia Daily News June 1, 2010 http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20100601_Young_criminals__appropriate_punishment.html#axzz0phrGLN2I THE U.S. SUPREME COURT last month ruled 5 to 4 that juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes may not be sentenced to life without parole. In the case, Graham v. Florida, the court followed essentially the same reasoning it used when it declared in 2005 that juveniles may not be executed: Scientific evidence is conclusive that young people have "limited moral capability" for their crimes - and their punishment should reflect that fact. Adolescents' "capacity for change" means that, after serving substantial time in prison, they could very well be able to lead productive lives. Or maybe not. But they should be given a meaningful chance to make that case, the court ruled. The decision will have an immediate effect on 129 prisoners around the nation - most of them in Florida - who are serving life without parole for crimes in which no one died. But the court's reasoning leads directly to the conclusion that no juvenile should receive a life-without-parole sentence, even for murder. Proposed legislation on the national and state level would require that juvenile lifers get a chance to show that they have been rehabilitated. Across the nation, there are more than 2,500 lifers who committed their crimes as juveniles. There are 444 juvenile lifers in Pennsylvania, all convicted of homicide - the most in the nation. Last September, state Rep. Kenyatta Johnson, D-Phila., introduced legislation (H.B. 1999) that would require that prisoners serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were juveniles be given at least one parole hearing during their first 15 years in jail, and at least one every three years after that. Johnson's bill is similar to one being considered in the U.S. House of Representatives. We support it. Even though he didn't mean to, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, provided an argument that supports this view - but not before presenting an "originalist" view of the Constitution that is nothing short of breathtaking. Thomas pointed out that, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, children as young as 7 could be executed - as if nothing has changed since then. It's impossible to believe that the Founders, if they had access to the current scientific evidence on a range of subjects, would fail to take it into account when writing the nation's laws. And that evidence says: The parts of brain that govern foresight, self-control, susceptibility to peer pressure and the ability to consider in advance the consequences of one's actions are not as fully developed among adolescents. Which also means that they have a capacity to change that is greater than that of adults. Thomas did observe that, given the court's rationale, there is no substantial difference between the culpability of a juvenile who rapes a child but doesn't kill her and another adolescent who pulls the trigger and kills someone. Both are unspeakable crimes, but if a juvenile is deemed "mentally immature" for one, he is "mentally immature" for the other. Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to the Court's 2005 decision in the most recent one: "From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult," he wrote. That should go for all juvenile crimes. No one is suggesting that an adolescent who takes a life should not be punished - only that it is "cruel and unusual punishment" to deprive him of any chance for release. Prison doors should bang shut on juvenile killers - and stay shut for a good long time. But society shouldn't throw away the key. Kids need independent watchdog Allentown Morning Call June 2, 2010
It simply published reports that drove the crooks crazy, especially in corruption-riddled Harrisburg, where some elements of the power structure preferred to slither under their rocks without exposure. One such commission report said that then-state Attorney General Ernie Preate had taken money from illegal gambling figures in return for letting them escape prosecution. That revelation did not do much to advance Preate's plan to run for governor, so he mobilized his friends in the General Assembly to legislate the crime commission out of existence in 1994. Preate and many other politicians eventually went to prison on corruption charges. (The charges were federal, of course. People like Preate are immune from accountability in the state system.) Their triumph over the commission, however, was complete. Since 1994, power figures have remained comfortable under their rocks. Last week, a report by the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice revealed how corrupt the court system can get, focusing on the ''kids for cash'' scandal in Luzerne County, where two judges are charged (federal, of course) with taking payoffs to place hundreds of children in commercial juvenile detention centers. All Pennsylvania courts are controlled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which looked the other way when the problems in Luzerne County were called to its attention by the Juvenile Law Center, based in Philadelphia. The high court refused to act until forced to do so by the federal investigation. On Sunday, I discussed the ICJJ report and another report by the JLC, noting how they found that public support of ''get-tough'' judges and ''zero tolerance'' disciplinary policies in public schools played into the hands of corrupt officials. When authorities can jail people, including children, without due process and other constitutional protections, it leads to mischief. Essential to the Luzerne County payoff scheme, said the JLC report, was the ability of schools to get rid of disciplinary problems by passing the buck to the court system through ''referrals.'' My main point Sunday was that the problem is not unique to Luzerne County. The same corrupt system, nurtured by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, exists throughout the state. The JLC report made several recommendations on how to prevent situations like the one in Luzerne County, such as establishing standards ''to limit school-based referrals.'' Another JLC recommendation is to ''ensure accountability through an ombudsman to monitor the court system and provide for adequate data collection and reporting.'' The juvenile ombudsman, the JLC said, should be established by ''the judicial or executive branch Â… to monitor and investigate juvenile court practices.'' A few days before I got my dander up over those reports, I heard from Cathleen Palm of Bernville, Berks County, who is executive director of the statewide Protect Our Children Committee. Her organization has been working to get a state ombudsman created. I asked her who would pay the ombudsman's salary. I have seen what happens when others who pretend to represent children, such as ''guardian ad litem'' lawyers, know their paychecks depend on the good graces of county agencies or judges. They represent the interests of the agencies, not children. Palm initially said the ombudsman should be appointed by the governor, which I felt would be just as bad as letting the office be controlled by the judicial branch, as suggested by the JLC. The only way an ombudsman will be effective is if it's as independent as the old Pennsylvania Crime Commission. The office will have to be created by legislation, but the worst thing would be to let the Supreme Court or other political bodies get their grubby hands on it. Children, especially if they are innocent, as were many in Luzerne County, need a watchdog who does not report to the very judges who created and condoned such outrages in the first place. I checked with Palm again on Tuesday, and she agreed about the need for a juvenile ombudsman ''who is really independent of the county and the state.'' I told her about the old Pennsylvania Crime Commission and how it accomplished more with public reports than all the state and federal prosecutors could do with their official powers. ''I think you're right,'' she said. ''Transparency is so, so important. You can't get enough of it in government.'' If state legislators care about your children, they will establish an independent ombudsman for them. If not, they will remain under their rocks.
June 02, 2010 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10153/1062332-192.stm The report issued Thursday by the commission that investigated Luzerne County's juvenile justice system said its corrupt practices haven't spread statewide. That's good news. The bad news is that the corruption investigation in Luzerne County has touched every aspect of its juvenile justice system -- from the judges who are accused of pocketing $2.8 million in bribes to the probation officers, defense attorneys, prosecutors and disciplinary boards who abdicated their responsibilities to thousands of children and their families. Justice appears to have taken a back seat in the juvenile incarceration system created by former Judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark Ciavarella Jr. The former judges have been accused of conspiring with two juvenile detention centers to fill hundreds of beds at the two facilities over many years. Because no one raised an eyebrow about how cases were handled in Luzerne compared to other places, children were separated from their families and assigned to detention centers regardless of the merits of their cases. Many children faced the judges without legal representation. The conduct of the judges was clearly draconian. Last year, the state Supreme Court ordered 4,000 cases vacated after reports of corruption came to light. According to the report issued by the 11-member Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, the "kids for cash" scandal is as much about official negligence and incompetence as it is about corruption. That's hardly a consolation to those directly affected by unjust incarceration. The report also recommends statewide reforms even though Luzerne County is an isolated case. Among the changes suggested would be the requirement that all juveniles have access to defense counsel when appearing before a judge. Oversight of judges and the Judicial Conduct Board also should be stepped up, along with ethics training for county and appellate judges. These are all recommendations the state's judicial justice system should embrace. "Kids for cash" is one of the most shocking scandals in the history of the commonwealth. It will be a stain on Pennsylvania's justice system for years. Enacting statewide reforms is the only way to ensure that it remains a sad and isolated chapter in our history. Holly Herman: To prevent corruption, juvenile courts should be open Directory: docs docs -> Application for acem docs -> Observational Assessment of Teaching Practices Teaching Assessment Initiative Proposal Submitted to The Teachers for a New Era project docs -> Traditional British values docs -> From Warfighters to Crimefighters: The Origins of Domestic Police Militarization docs -> Borzoi Club of America Register of Merit Program I. What is a Register Of Merit docs -> Protecting the rights of the child in the context of migration docs -> United Nations E/C. 12/Esp/5 docs -> 9th May 1950 the schuman declaration docs -> Getting To Outcomes® in Services for Homeless Veterans 10 Steps for Achieving Accountability Download 351.58 Kb. Share with your friends:
|