Every act, criminal or otherwise, requires motive, means, and opportunity. In the John Caudle case, for instance, the prosecutor has surmised that 14-year-old Caudle killed his parents because he didn’t want to do his chores. This is the motive we are expected to accept despite strong evidence that Caudle was a victim of abuse. He had access to a gun (means) and he confronted his mother after coming home from school (opportunity).

In a recent debate between defense attorney Kim Dvorchak and District Attorney Don Quick, Mr. Quick flat denied any political motive in filing adult charges against kids. I would submit that his own words in that debate betray him. I’m not usually one to parse words, but in this instance the specific request was for empirical evidence. So here it is:

Question: “What empirical evidence do you have that DAs use direct file for political gain?”

Answer from Ms. Dvorchak: “…There are concerns with placing the decision to file charges in the hands of an elected prosecutor particularly in a high profile homicide case. Those cases are going to generate a lot of community attention, a lot of community feelings and there will be tremendous pressure upon that elected official to prosecute a child in adult court that might not be prevalent for the judge… I would raise concerns that a prosecutor who is an elected official isn’t the best person to be making the decision about the circumstances of that individual child.

Response from Mr. Quick: ” …I do get offended when I’m told not only am I not making the right decision, but I’m doing it because I’m racist or I’m doing it for political gain. That’s outside the boundary of being questioned…There isn’t any evidence that we do this for political gain…If I went out and advertised that I choose to direct file less than half of the cases that are brought before me and certainly less than half that are eligible for direct file, that would be my political liability…  The reason there is no evidence is because we don’t do that.”

Recognizing that the rate at which he direct files is a political liability is, essentially, an admission that the number times a DA direct files adult charges against children has political implications. So let’s review motive, means and opportunity.

Motive: District Attorneys are elected officials and therefore have political motives. They are subject to election and reelection in order to keep their jobs. According to Mr. Quick, there is a direct link between the number of direct files he does and his potential for reelection.

Means: District Attorneys have the power to direct file adult charges against children with no review or hearing by a juvenile court judge. This means that they will never be questioned inside the judicial system and the power rests solely with them. If they don’t use their power to direct file, a political opponent might accuse them of being “soft on crime.” Not using direct file, as Mr. Quick points out, is a political risk.

Opportunity: If only filing adult charges in half of juvenile cases that are eligible is a political risk then it stands to reason that the other 50% are a political opportunity. Mr. Quick defends against this point by saying that he doesn’t advertise the rate at which he direct files (the equivalent of having an opportunity, but not taking it). However, as an elected official Mr. Quick is well aware that he doesn’t have to advertise in order to get the community’s attention in a high profile case. Coverage of the Caudle case is evidence enough of that.

So here’s the deal: StopDirectFile.org will not apologize for ascribing political motives when DAs are making political calculations based on the number of direct files they do. Political motives clearly exist for DAs and they are clearly a factor that introduces bias in deciding in what court to charge a juvenile. We have separation of powers for a reason: to ensure a fair and impartial trial. If DAs are truly interested in “pursuing justice,” (as is their ethical obligation) they will give up their power to file adult charges to an impartial judiciary. If not, they will continue to use that power for political gain.

As this video clip from CNN shows, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to take a case involving the legality of charging juveniles as adults in cases where death does not occur.  This is the same court that, in 2005, ruled that teenagers are not mentally mature enough to ever deserve the death sentence.  Dare we hope, based on that previous ruling, that the highest court in the land will again decide on the side of justice and declare that children are not ever developed or mature enough to be charged as adults UNTIL THEY ARE ADULTS?  The caveat that no deaths have occurred in  the case is an obvious nod to the “tough on crime” folks, but even so, this would be a very big step in the right direction.

To those who consider it “justice” that children be locked up with adults, I would ask: how do you explain that?  How is it justice to hold someone accountable under a standard that they do not meet?  Guilt in our justice system depends a good deal on the criminality of the offenders intent, just as much as on the actual commission of the crime.  Which is why murder is a Capitol crime, whereas involuntary manslaughter is not.   Justice demands that some restitution be made for crimes, humans demand that the “guilty” suffer and perhaps die for their crimes.

It is easy to view the world in this way, just so long as it is not your child that is the one found guilty.  As long as the horrible stories we hear of abuse and violence happen in other peoples families, it is easy to play judge and jury and stick to the empty mantra “adult crime, adult time.”  However, when it is our own child, it is not so easy.  Perhaps, instead of seeing a monster, we would see an impressionable, immature, underdeveloped child that deserves a second chance.  Perhaps, rather than howling for blood, we would realize that justice involves respecting the rights of all parties, not just the victims.  It is easy to see black and white when one has no skin in the game.  Actually knowing the accused child, and knowing first hand that he or she is not a monster changes things a bit.

Teenagers lack the reasoning ability and the perspective that adults have, that adults need to fully comprehend the crimes they commit.  If the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes this fact, it will be a great victory.

March 15, 2010 by Rev. Bonnie Young. Reposted from: http://avoiceforjuvenileprisonreform.kingscrossingfoundation.com/

I received a very disturbing e-mail this week.  It was from a fellow advocacy organization sending out an action alert for the state of Colorado.  It seems that after our Governor called for drastic budget cuts across the board because of our fiscal shortfall, the Colorado Department of Corrections has asked for $10 million dollars to open one tower of CSPII.  CSPII will be Colorado’s second supermax facilitythat will be even more debilitating and oppressive than the current facility (CSP) that is in operation.  All visiting at CSPII will be done via video. This will eliminate all human contact.

While DOC tries to justify the need for this facility and this severe level of incarceration, their arguments do not hold water.  The truth is that Colorado uses administrative segregation more than any other state in the country except for Ohio.  The truth is that DOC has empty beds right now in many facilities around the state.  This means that offenders currently housed in administrative segregation at CSP or Sterling Correctional facility could be placed back in general population.  The truth is that DOC over uses the practice of administrative segregation for any level of infraction, including the most minor violation of DOC rules.

The truth is that we do not want to be known for torturous practices in this state.  There is a growing movement away from the use of this form of punishment because it has been researched, documented and confirmed that such disciplinary action actually causes more harm to individuals and decreases their ability to interact in a social environment.  The truth is that this form of disciplinary practice causes mental illness.  Individuals, including members of our military, have recounted the deterioration of their mental processes and cognition when housed in solitary confinement.

Aside from all of the facts concerning the use of administrative segregation comes the bottom line issue.  It seems that our elected officials value prison facilities more than they value education.  It seems that there is a special place for 10 million dollar requests from DOC when our school districts are cutting millions of dollars from their budgets.

It is time that we begin placing our focus and emphasis on the programs and systems that create stronger communities, and that begins by creating stronger individuals. Education, treatment programs, rehabilitation programs, housing, employment and a state that is focused on creating long term stability for our future is what we need.

We have followed the direction and decisions of our lawmakers and we are reaping the results of those decisions.  We all believed the experts that said there was a coming generation of super predators and we needed to prepare our prisons for them.  We believed our law makers when they declared a war on drugs and we believed them when they said they were going to significantly reduce the availability and use of drugs in America.  We believed them when they spouted their tough on crime platforms and how they were going to make America a safer place to live.  We allowed them to fill us with fear and foreboding and gladly gave up our freedoms and humanity so that we could feel more secure.

We have 25 years of history to review concerning these political platforms.  History proves that we didn’t have anything to be afraid of.  Our communities remain as safe as they were when these political messages came forth, meaning that we have not experienced a significant increase or decline in our crime rates or addiction in this country.  The laws (mandatory minimums, 3 strikes your out, longer prison sentences) have not produced the results that our law makers promised.  The huge prison expansion that this country has seen (and paid for) has only created and increased a new population of Americans called OFFENDERS.

We will spend close to Three Quarters of a Billion dollars on corrections this year in the state of Colorado (operating and capitol expense budget requests, probation and parole).  The numbers for the nation are even more astounding.  According to the PEW Charitable Trust report “1 in 31″, the United States spent 68 Billion dollars on corrections, parole and probation in 2008.  By the way, Colorado has the distinction of having 1 person for every 29 citizens under the jurisdiction of DOC.

Our crime rates have changed little and the safety in our communities remains the same.  Our communities are not stronger and our criminal justice system does not rehabilitate or “correct” the behavior of those in their charge.  Treamment, rehabilitation and education is less than 5% of DOC’s budget.  The focus is purely on warehousing….with a very high price tag.

Our education systems, whether elementary, secondary or higher education, have all cut their budgets steadily over the last decade.  We have eliminated or drastically reduced programs that care for the disabled, the abused, the neglected, the homeless and the elderly leaving them to their own devises so that they may survive.

BUT WE STILL FUND PRISONS.  So my question is why?  What do our lawmakers and officials stand to gain from funding more prisons? What is the cost to all of us?  Why is Colorado opening another prison facility (and a very expensive one) when other states are closing prison facilities?

I ask you to join me in calling for spending that creates healthy communities.  With limited dollars available for our state budgets, we need to make every dollar count.  We need to hold our law makers accountable for their actions and votes.  We need to focus on the members of our community that are not housed in correctional facilities so that they become strong and successful.  We need to be sure that we are focused on those who are at risk so that they do not fail and find themselves on a path to prison.

Then we need to focus on rehabilitating and holding accountable, those who have made wrong choices.  We need to give them the tools, the opportunity and the requirement to make better choices for their future.  While those held in prison may have broken the law, they are also capable of rehabilitating their lives and becoming successful members of our communities.  This means we will not pay for their housing or care….They will pay their own way and have confidence in knowing they can succeed.

If you would like more information on the practice of solitary confinement please click on the links below.  If you would like to contact the members of the Joint Budget Committee in Colorado, the links are provided.

http://solitarywatch.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/teen-kills-himself-after-being-put-in-solitary-for-trying-to-kill-himself/

www.supermaxed.com/

Colorado Members of Joint Budget Committee -

jack.pommer.house@state.co.us moe.keller.senate@state.co.us mferrandino@yahoo.com rep.kent.lambert@comcast.net abel.tapia.senate@state.co.us senatorwhite@earthlink.net

According to a new article by Joe Boven at the Colorado Independent, kids awaiting trial “find themselves part of a system that fails to educate them [or] provide them equal access to services like mental health care.”

Boven’s article delves more deeply into the problems created by direct file than any other previous report on the subject, noting that “juveniles in Colorado used to undergo a transfer hearing by a judge who decided whether a juvenile should be charged as an adult.” But to understand, fully, why direct file is still a problem a little more background is probably in order.

The year was 1993 and the entire nation was undergoing what appeared to be a spike in violent juvenile crime. The Denver media dubbed it the “Summer of Violence.” Seizing on the political opportunity District Attorneys actively lobbied in a special session called by Governor Roy Romer for the power to charge juveniles as adults in order to stem what was perceived to be a plague of gang violence.

As Fred Brown of The Denver Post noted in 2007 Op-Ed piece entitled Gang fear lurks in shadows, the “Summer of Violence” would have been more accurately dubbed the “Summer of Fear” because homicides had actually fallen 22% from  the previous year. While juvenile violent crime continued to spike through the 1990s, it has since fallen back to pre-1991 levels and remained relatively steady for almost 10 years.

While it is unclear what factors contributed to a decade-long decline in juvenile violent crime, one thing is clear: District Attorneys are still filing adult charges against kids.  In fact, in 2007 District Attorneys used direct file at least 138 times and in 2008 they upped the ante to 179.

DAs claim that they only file adult charges in the most egregious cases. Colorado’s Office of Research and statistics currently documents juvenile violent crime up to 2007.

Source: http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/stats5.htm

The graph clearly shows that violent juvenile crime has leveled off. The question, then, is “why?” Why, if juvenile violent crime is on the decline do we need to keep punishing kids as adults?

Maybe the answer is that filing adult charges against kids isn’t a matter of keeping violent crime under control. Maybe, just maybe, its about playing on our fears. In the final analysis we’re only left with one more question: Is that right or wrong?

Reposted in its entirety from http://avoiceforjuvenileprisonreform.kingscrossingfoundation.com/2010/03/02/see-no-evil/

It seems that in the United States we have a “Polly Anna” attitude or maybe we walk around with our hands over our eyes so that we do not have to face the evil around us.

Most American people believe that if a person is arrested and charged, they must have been involved in a crime and deserve what’s coming to them.  Most of America believes that we have a criminal justice system in place that is fairly fool proof and we always get the bad guy.  We have to believe that.  Otherwise we will be faced with the fact that yet another piece of our world is antiquated, corrupt and unaccountable.

There has been a consistent theme in reporting around the country this week.  A theme that should cause us to be angry.  This concerns the injustice that has been set against our fellow citizens and children.  Those that have been charged wrongfully, those being bantered with in a game of power and those who have served time in our prisons wrongfully…….even those who died in prison and were later pardoned.

Organizations like the The Innocence Project work on cases around the country to get those who have been wrongfully convicted free.  There are also organizations who are working on the issues surrounding juvenile justice and the ability of District Attorney’s to transfer juveniles to adult court for prosecution.  Still others are working to examine and hold accountable our criminal justice system.  There are too many stories of criminal justice infractions on the rights of citizens, too many wrongful convictions and too many innocent people behind bars.  Then you can add too that the number of individuals who are serving long prison sentences or indeterminate sentences because of conspiracy laws and felony murder.  These laws cause the defendant to be just as culpable as the person who committed the crime just because they were present or knew of the crime before or after the fact.  It’s called guilt by association.

The first story that I want to relate to you, is about an 11 year old boy (Jordan Brown) who has been charged with murder.  Much debate went on concerning the status of this young defendant and now he is notably one of the youngest person to be tried in adult court.  What in the world could an 11 year old boy have done to deserve this?  He is charged with killing his father’s fiance and her unborn child.  The evidence proves otherwise.

From Mary Ellen Johnson of The Pendulum Foundation – “The reasons this case may be so important are two: first, Jordan is the youngest person in America to have been charged as an adult for murder; and two, Jordan is innocent. All of the issues which arise in youth violence cases are present except having to explain why this young person may have gone wrong. He didn’t. He is, in fact, a model kid and potentially a poster-boy for everything that is structurally wrong with the American approach to youth justice, Jordan’s case dramatizes that everyone’s children are at risk as long as these unfair and irrational laws remain on the books.” Mary Ellen is speaking of the Direct Statute and the ability of a District Attorney to transfer a juvenile into adult court for prosecution.  For more information concerning this case please click on these links – www.jordanbrowntrust.org or http://wandervogeldiary.wordpress.com/

The next story that I want to bring to your attention concerns the infamous case of the “West Memphis Three”.  These three boys were charged with the murder of homeless men.  The evidence proves otherwise.  One young man is on death row.  Actor Jonny Depp made a public appearance and statement on the program “48 Hours Mystery” this past weekend, on behalf of justice for these three boys.  All they are asking for is a re-trial and a chance to present the truth.  So far they have been denied.  You can see more on this by following the link below.

Play CBS Video

• COMING UP
• Johnny Depp On Taking a Stand

Actor Johnny Depp says he’s not worried about about those who may criticize him for taking a stand in support of freeing three convicted killers known as the West Memphis Three. He just wants justice.

Robert Schwartz from the Juvenile Law Center wrote an article for CNN concerning the treatment of juvenile offenders.  http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/18/schwartz.kids.trials/.

The last article is both joyous and sad at the same time.  Texas has lead the nation in reviewing cases where innocence/guilt is in question and many innocent men have been set free.  However, this pardon came after the man died while serving time in prison.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-issues-tim-cole-who-died-in-prison-its-first-posthumous-pardon/19379566?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Ftexas-issues-tim-cole-who-died-in-prison-its-first-posthumous-pardon%2F19379566&sms_ss=email

America it is time to take your hands off your eyes.  We have to address the injustice…….before another innocent man dies in prison or another kid lives his/her WHOLE LIFE in a box.

Colorado State Representative Claire Levy is sponsoring a bill that would return a small modicum of control to judges in Direct File cases, according to this article from the Boulder Daily Camera.  The bill is a new version of one vetoed in 2008. It would raise the age at which a child can be charged as an adult to 16 and give defense attorneys the ability to ask a judge to reverse Direct File charges.  These common sense controls are already in place in other states that allow direct file, and if they even prevent one child from falling victim to a DA’s political ambition than they are a good idea.  However, and this is key, the bill misses the point.  The problem with Direct File is not the age at which it can be applied.  Direct file is simply WRONG. While Representative Levy’s bill is a step in the right direction, it doesn’t over turn direct file.

It is wrong to build a legal system that pursues vengeance over compassion.  It is wrong to hold a child who has been physically, mentally, and emotionally abused by his parents (such as John Caudle) to the same standard as a fully grown  mentally healthy adult.  It is wrong to disregard the mental, emotional, and physical differences between children and adults.  It is wrong to think that society, which has a vested interest in ensuring the safety of all children, should not actively seek to protect children from abusive situations.

The logic of Direct File is this: a juvenile, no matter what heinous abuse and/or neglect he has suffered, should still comport himself like an adult when it comes to confronting his abusers.  There are too many contradictions in this to even offer a complete list, but here are a few:

- police often hesitate to remove minors from their homes

- adolescents are not expected to act like adults in any other capacity

- an abused child never had the opportunity to develop a healthy view of the world, so how could that child behave like a normal healthy adult?

Direct File simply sweeps these, and the myriad of other questions under the rug of social ignorance and treats children who have had tragic lives as intentional criminal masterminds.  Supporters of Direct File like to argue that these kids are just bad apples who need to be locked up before they commit another crime.  No doubt it is easy to view the world through such one dimensional and rose colored lenses.  In reality, however, those children were not born evil — they were abused and neglected until they lashed out.  Should we now write them off permanently?  Without even trying to heal the mental and emotional scars of trauma that cause the violence?

In the final analysis, Representative Levy’s bill is a nice idea, but only as a stop gap measure while the ultimate goal of ending the evil of Direct File is pursued.

It is shallow comfort to children already suffering from Direct File, but the realization that our current approach to juvenile justice is flawed,  is slowly spreading.  According to this article from Michigan, other states that have Direct File laws are rethinking the wisdom of those laws. Hopefully this realization cannot be long in coming to Colorado as well.  Let’s hope so. Far too many children have had their lives sacrificed on the alters of political expediency and faulty logic.

John Caudle is a liar. According to a recent Denver Post article, the 15-year-old child accused of killing his mother and stepfather in an October 2009 shooting lied in a confession to a fellow inmate. And prosecutors are using the details of that testimony to imply that allegations Caudle was abused can’t be trusted.

…youth-detention resident Malouff went further and said Caudle had told her he was whipped with wire and burned with cigarettes. Prosecutors noted, however, that Caudle also told Malouff lies, including that he had used a shotgun in the killings.

Malouff testified that prosecutors agreed to only charge her as a juvenile rather than an adult in connection with the death of her 7-month-old son in exchange for detailing Caudle’s confession to her.

What The Post article doesn’t say is that abused children often lie as a defense mechanism. Their lives are lived in a lie. That lie is that everything is perfectly normal. Caudle told the same inmate that he also killed a dog on the property. When investigators visited the crime scene they found no evidence that a dog had been killed and, in fact, Caudle had finished his chores and left food and water for the family pets before he ran away.

So why do abused children lie? Most often it’s because they’re afraid of what their abusers might do if they tell the truth. In this case, it seems to be because Caudle was afraid of what might happen to him in jail. He wanted to look tough and mean because that’s what you have to be to survive in prison. But children who feed the family pet before fleeing from a crime scene are not sociopaths. They’re just trying to survive an abusive situation the only way they can. And that’s all Caudle is trying to do now, survive an abusive system.

The same Denver Post article details how Caudle tried to run away in 2006, but was prevented from doing so by the County Sheriff. But, again, the Post article doesn’t tell the whole story because Caudle’s friends and family have testified that they also tried to have him removed, but the Department of Human Services was not empowered to act if there wasn’t an immediate threat to his life.

So here’s the point: The parents that were supposed to care for John Caudle; the family that tried to rescue him; the system that was supposed to protect him; the government that was supposed to uphold his rights as a child all failed or abused him. And, now, that same system–the same government–that failed John Caudle as a child is attempting to prosecute him as an adult.

Reality check, people: IF CAUDLE WERE AN ADULT NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. How does it make any sense to treat John Caudle as an adult now?