A correction was requested by the Attorney General’s Communications Director, Mike Saccone. The correction was made at 9:45 a.m. on July 29 .

15-year-old John Caudle was arraigned today on first degree murder charges in the deaths of his mother and stepfather. Caudle, who was 14 and weighed only 97 pounds when he was arrested, has been direct filed as an adult and faces 80 years in prison. Inside the Rio Grande County courtroom, the question on many people’s lips was ‘why is Assistant Attorney General Dan Edwards prosecuting this case’?

Edwards has a background in prosecuting death penalty cases and was reportedly involved with District Attorney Carol Chambers’ prosecution of Sir Mario Owens. Owens received the death penalty for the gang-related murder of witnesses set to testify against him.

Why Edwards is involved in the Caudle case is a standing question that raises concerns for Mary Ellen Johnson, Executive Director at Pendulum Juvenile Justice. “John Caudle might have weighed 97 pounds soaking wet and is about the farthest thing imaginable from a big bad gangbanger. The state has plenty of resources to prosecute an abused kid. Why are they bringing in an Assistant Attorney General, whose expertise is in death penalty cases? Local prosecutors have all the resources they need. What’s this really about?”

Asked why he thought Edwards was involved, State Public Defender Doug Wilson said, “That’s a good question,” but was reluctant to offer further speculation.

The Attorney General’s Office could not offer a complete explanation for its interest in this particular case.  The Attorney General’s Communications Director, Mike Saccone, explained the general purpose of the Attorney General’s Homicide Assistance Unit. When asked if a specific request was made by the District Attorney’s Office Saccone said, “I’m not familiar with the details of this particular case in terms of who requested them, but we generally only intervene in cases when we’re requested to come help.”

At time of publication, the Attorney General’s Office was looking for documentation of a request for assistance from the District Attorneys’ Office in the 12th Judicial District.

Specific information about a request for assistance was also sought from District Attorney Dan Mahonee’s Office, but could not be provided without the permission of prosecuting attorney Dan McIntyre, who is out of town until next week.

According to a recent Denver Post article, Gov. Bill Ritter is set to appoint several judges to the bench, including a vacancy created by Supreme Court Judge Mary Mullarkey’s recent decision to step down.   StopDirectFile.org has to ask, “what’s the point?” What’s the point when the judges you’re appointing aren’t really allowed the full scope of decision-making power that Coloradans believe they ought to have? What’s the point when a prosecutor can make an extra-judicial decision that no judge can overturn?

The power to direct file charges against a child isn’t just procedural authority, it is judicial authority. In effect, when a prosecutor chooses to file adult charges against a child, he or she is choosing a sentencing range for that child and pronouncing their judgment on that child in open court. Legal precedent in Colorado is clear. According to Colorado Revised Statutes,”the authoritative expression of legal conclusions in declaring the sentence of the law…and the pronouncing of judgment in open court in the presence of those affected thereby, so as to bind and control persons and property” are judicial functions that “cannot be lawfully exercised, except by those entrusted therewith by the people under the constitution.” De Votie v. McGerr, 14 Colo. 577, 23 P. 980 (1890).

Most states preserve separation of powers in filing adult charges by holding what is called a ‘transfer hearing.’ During a transfer hearing, from juvenile to adult court, a prosecutor presents his or her evidence against an accused child. A defense attorney then has the opportunity to cross examine that evidence before a judge. Based on the presentation and cross examination of evidence, the judge then determines the appropriate venue for trying a child. But NOT in Colorado. In Colorado we presume a child’s guilt just enough to make sure that they face consequences as an adult. In Colorado we make sure that a prosecutor’s decision to file adult charges is not subject to judicial review. That’s wrong and Gov. Ritter’s appointments, as a result, have no real meaning.

I don’t know exactly how tall John Caudle is, but all anyone has to do is look at a picture to know that he wasn’t simply being sent to bed without dinner. The 15-year-old murder suspect who is on trial for defending himself against severely abusive parents only weighed 97 pounds when he was arrested. But according to prosecutors he killed his parents because he didn’t want to do his chores.

So let’s put the facts in context. A healthy weight for a 15-year-old male who is 5 foot, 1 inch tall is 123 pounds…at the low end.  According to MotherJones.com, Caudle is almost 6 feet tall. At that height, Caudle should have weighed at least 147 pounds. If he were healthy, he might have weighed as much as 187 pounds. The only fact that the jury in Caudle’s trial really needs to be concerned with is that Caudle was being systematically starved.

What enrages me is that had Caudle died of malnutrition or starvation, his parents might have only gotten 16 years for child abuse resulting in death. And yet, if convicted in adult court under direct file provisions, Caudle could get as much as 80 years for defending himself.

All of this leads into a wider problem: According to ChildWelfare.gov, “Colorado [has an] estimated…50 percent to 60 percent of child deaths resulting from abuse or neglect [that] are not recorded” that way. What that means is that Colorado’s prosecutors simply aren’t enforcing child abuse laws.  Maybe if Colorado’s prosecutors were less focused on convicting kids for defending themselves and more focused on tracking down and prosecuting abusive parents, we could eliminate parricide in Colorado.

I guess prosecutors would rather spend millions of taxpayer dollars to incarcerate a kid for life than actually work to protect him and end the cycle of violence.  Apparently, it’s just more politically expedient to nail a kid whose friends can’t or don’t vote than it is to adhere to your own ethical standards.

The Beth-El Mennonite Church in Colorado Springs will host a restorative justice symposium Thursday and Friday September 24th through the 25th. This important event is sponsored by the El Paso County Bar Association, the 4th Judicial District, and the Colorado Springs School District among others. According to the Pikes Peak Restorative Justice Council, the purpose of restorative justice is “to enable victims, offenders and the community to repair harms and restore relationships.”

Many juvenile offenders, including some who are being held in prison for life, did not intend the level of harm they may have caused. Restorative justice recognizes that, regardless of intent and harm, healing the community, victims and the offender are worthy objectives. When a crime is committed, the community is harmed, victims are traumatized and offenders may simply be abandoned to a “corrections system” that fails to correct anything at all.

StopDirectFile.org sees restorative justice as an important step toward rehabilitating young offenders. According to Don Quick, District Attorney for the 17th Judicial District, “society’s number one responsibility” when a child commits homicide “is to make sure that kid doesn’t kill again.” There are many different types of homicide from manslaughter to circumstantial (felony) murder. Most often, it is not a child’s intent to commit homicide and yet children are tried as adults when a death occurs almost without question. As a society we can keep a child from killing again by putting them in cold storage for the rest of their lives. But that strictly punitive approach ignores–at enormous community expense–society’s responsibility to both the victim and the offender. Restorative Justice, on the other hand, treats both offenders and victims on a case-by-case basis.

According to one victim, restorative justice had enormously positive effects: “My family and I were able to see remorse and pain from the responsible party who killed my son [] in an alcohol and speeding related accident. Because of this, we were able to forgive him and exchange hugs and tears. We feel we now have the strength to heal and carry on [our son's] legacy along with many awesome memories.”

As stated in several previous blogs, StopDirectFile.org supports “comprehensive sentence reform that provides appropriate community protections by removing juvenile offenders from society (until they are no longer a threat); provides victims with a sense of security and justice (not revenge); and gives juvenile offenders an opportunity for rehabilitation (not cold storage).”

StopDirectFile.org feels that restorative justice is the all-important first step toward a child’s rehabilitation and we strongly endorse the Pikes Peak Restorative Justice Symposium.

For more information or to sign up for the symposium please visit the symposium page at www.pprjc.org or call (719) 640-1650. Space is limited so register today.

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.

Want proof that DA’s abuse Direct File?  Check out the story of DA Dan May and the three teenage children he is charging as adults for robbing a 7-11.  Direct File was intended to be used in cases of heinous crimes, such as columbine style mass killings  – now it is being used against kids who rob a convenience store.

Robbing a 7-11 is a crime and those who do it should be prosecuted and, if convicted, serve time .  But robbing a convenience store is not an excuse for a DA to ruin the lives of three children.  Tried as adults, 3 children will face sentences of up to 30 years.  Where will DA’s draw the line?  Will shoplifting soon become a Direct File worthy offense?  Steal a pack of Sweet Tarts and go to adult prison?  Perhaps jay-walking should be included?  After all, it is against the law.

The power to make the decision to charge a child offender as an adult should be used very carefully by a person who does not see it as a political tool as Mr. May clearly does.  I’m sure this move on his part will be touted as a “tough on crime” record in his reelection bid…as three teenagers are being raped in adult prison.

Alamosa Prosecutor Dan McIntyre wants us to believe that if John Caudle killed his mother and step father it was over a dispute about chores. That would tie things up nicely.  Never mind that the child he wants to try as an adult spent 14 years enduring severe neglect and abuse.

According to a recent interview with family friend Cecile Dinsmore in The Valley Courier, Caudle’s mother Joanne Rinebarger was an abusive drug addict who “killed every bit of joy in [John's] life, and took everything that he loved away from him as punishment.”

…But never mind all that because what is really on trial in the case of the State of Colorado vs. John Caudle is really justice vs. politics; right vs. wrong. McIntyre is seeking two consecutive 40 year sentences. Unless he expects Caudle to live to be 95 in prison, that’s a slow death sentence. McIntyre needs us to believe that he’s trying a “monster” because that is the only thing that justifies the monstrous vengeance he’s seeking.

More than anything, McInTyre needs us to believe that monstrous vengeance is justified. If we don’t believe that vengeance is necessary then he can’t justify it to himself. Like most prosecutors, McIntyre knows that kids are different from adults. He knows there are numerous studies (see references) that show  kids are prone to risky, emotionally driven behavior. McIntyre knows that adolescents, while maturing, are not mature enough to make adult decisions in the heat of the moment.

Finally, McIntyre knows that using the practice of direct file to mete out cruel and unusual punishment to John Caudle is unconscionable. If John Caudle killed his mother and his step father then he ought to be incarcerated, but he shouldn’t be warehoused in cold storage for the rest of his life. As a child, Caudle deserves a chance at redemption.

Trying Caudle as an adult using direct file is wrong. McIntyre knows the difference between right and wrong; he just doesn’t care.

In the end, everything that Dan McIntyre knows makes him more of a monster than John Caudle will ever be.

The Death Penalty, a sentence which our society reserves for the most heinous crimes, has always been a subject of intense debate.  DA’s who recommend death as a just sentence can only do so in the most extreme cases, and are often second guessed by judges and juries.  Why is it, then, that a Juvenal Life Without Parole sentence is so easily accepted by society?  When we send a prisoner to jail with a death sentence, we are saying that society and the interests of justice are best served by the certain death of that person.  What are we saying when we send a child to jail without the possibility of parole?

DA’s who make the decision to file adult charges and seek a sentence of life without parole know the prison system well enough to predict the abuse and horror that will greet that child.  Those DA’s know that a child in an adult prison can look forward to years of rape, solitary confinement, and very often at least one suicide attempt.  How exactly does a life without parole sentence differ from a death sentence?

In both cases DA’s are making the determination that society and justice are best served by removing and isolating the offender.  In both cases, DA’s have decided that the idea of rehabilitation does not apply to the offender.  In both cases society has locked up the offender and thrown away the key.  The only difference that I can see is that the criminal with the death sentence knows there is a point when the horrors of prison life will end.  The child who is incarcerated as an adult without the possibility of parole has no such knowledge, instead that child looks at a future full of nothing but pain and abuse.  How is justice served in such a case, and why does out society allow such barbaric treatment of children?

Organizations like The Other Death Penalty Project are working to end this horrific hypocrisy.  Please help them by visiting their website and getting the word out.

The article States Rethink “Adult Time for Adult Crimes” from CNN shows that at least one state out of fifty is at last facing the folly of charging minors as adults.  The story centers on a teenager whose life is basically ruined because he had the audacity to pilfer a package of chewing gum from another teenager, after which some fisticuffs ensued.  Was that a nice thing to do?  No, clearly.  At the same time, was it a “crime” worth charging him as an adult for?  A pack of gum for a life?  Thank god Connecticut legislators have the brains to see that such a trade is asinine.

When will Colorado legislators reach the same conclusion?  Direct File was invoked 138 times in 2007.  Surely, in some of those cases a serious crime had been committed, but in how many of them was the issue at hand comparable to a pack of stolen chewing gum?  Teenagers oftentimes do stupid things.  Mosh pits, Woodstock, drag racing, and constant texting come readily to mind.  If every teenager who made a mistake were to be charged as an adult, there would be none left to eventually grow into adults.  The fact of the matter is that the power to decide which crimes are felonious enough to warrant adult charges is a power that should not be lightly vested in elected officials, but rather carefully entrusted to judges whose sworn duty to uphold the standards of justice  is not subject to changing political winds.

Rape as Rehabilitation?

As the story by Lovisa Stannow in the Huffington Post proves, children incarcerated as adults are raped, and then raped again; often times by the Corrections Officers who are supposed to protect them. Given that, more often than not, it is physical and sexual abuse that drove these troubled children to violence in the first place, one has to wonder if the justice system in this country thinks that rape is the rehabilitation these children need.  What kind of sick logic is it that could think that?    This story is just more evidence that the purpose of our prison system is not to rehabilitate the wayward, as is claimed, but rather is to exact revenge of a most sickening kind.  This needs to stop, immediately. When are DA’s going to wake up to the fact that children, no matter how heinous their actions, are not monsters?  When are we, as a society, going to demand that children be protected from violence, and not forced into it in the name of “justice” and “rehabilitation?”