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.

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.

Please join the folks behind stopdirectfile.org as we host a head-to-head debate between Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition attorney Kim  Dvorchak and a Colorado District Attorney.  The debate will focus on the question: should  Colorado prosecutors retain the power to charge juveniles as adults?  StopDirectFile.org hopes this debate will force the District Attorneys to take an honest look at the many moral and legal problems of Direct File.

The debate is scheduled for Thursday, March 18, 2010 and will be held  in room 165 of the Strum School of Law at the University of Denver.  The event begins at 5pm, and will be followed by a meet and eat; which will be a wonderful opportunity to meet others who are battling against this harmful statute.

The event is being sponsored and supported by numerous groups, including: The League of Women Voters, New Era Colorado, the Greater Denver Interfaith Alliance, and many others.

Apart from being an important debate, this is our opportunity to show the DAs how the citizens of Colorado feel about this issue.  The more supporters who show up, the louder they will hear our message.  Please plan to attend, and RSVP to: StopDirectFile@yahoo.com or call 720-314-1402.

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 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?”