The star of Robert Rodriguez’s new film, Machete, wasn’t always just acting. In a recent interview with TIME, Danny Trejo talks about his career as a juvenile drug addict and armed robber; a career that took him to “every penitentiary in the state of California” before he turned his life around and became a drug counselor in L.A.

Trejo was a real live tough guy whose best friend applied his first prison tattoo with a needle and thread. He changed. As an adult, he’s led a stellar career that has placed him in more than 200 films playing (usually) the villain that he used to see himself as. The irony doesn’t escape him and he laughs off the violence portrayed in Machete by explaining that “[it's] almost funny. It’s not gory. You’re shocked, and then you laugh.”

The fact is that Trejo got lucky. Once they’re in, most kids like him don’t ever get out of the system. Some are relegated to institutions for the rest of their lives for a single mistake. In Colorado alone, there are 49 offenders sentenced to life without parole as children. Yet, some of those kids’ crimes were as innocuous as helping an armed robber like Trejo get away from what turned out to be a botched job. They are the unlucky few.

Many of us have stories like Trejo’s. Many of us had violent or abusive childhoods. Many of us were lucky enough not to get caught up in the system. Don’t we owe the unlucky ones a little understanding? Life sentences for kids–even the ones who were party to a criminal act that resulted in death–are wrong. They deny children the right to make the choice that Trejo made. They deny them the right to become adults.

If Trejo is an example of ‘the worst of the worst’ and he was rehabilitated then our denial of childrens’ humanity and potential for change is a truly sad reality.

Answers.com defines felony murder as:

An unlawful homicide that occurs in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, which is considered first degree murder by operation of this doctrine. In many modern statutes, only homicides that occur in the course of certain specified felonies are “felony murders.”

A Supreme Court ruling in May declared that juvenile life without parole was cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles who committed crimes other than homicide. Already, defense attorneys are using the decision to challenge felony murder doctrine as it applies to juveniles. A recent case filed in York County, Pennsylvania seeks relief for Michael A. Lehman who was 14 when he was sentenced to life in connection with the stabbing death of Kwame Beatty in 1988. Lehman’s attorney has filed a motion arguing for Lehman’s release on the basis that at no time did the state ever allege Lehman carried out the murder.

While the details of the Lehman case are unclear, under Colorado law the rules for charging felony murder include everything from unintended death resulting from arson all the way down to aiding in the immediate flight from a crime scene at which a death occurred.

There are currently at least 12 offenders serving life without parole for felony murders committed as juveniles. While the circumstances of each of these cases is unclear, there are several where the child’s greatest crime was to help a murder suspect leave the scene of the crime. Everyone knows the psychological principles behind ‘fight or flight.’ But dozens of studies show that teens’ decision-making faculties are not fully developed and that full brain maturation does not occur until at least the age of 24.

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, new scientific evidence around brain research and recent challenges to the felony murder doctrine each case where a child simply sought to flee the scene of the crime (with or without the suspect), needs comprehensive and substantive review to determine if the juveniles in question were fully culpable and deserving of a life sentence.

A recent article in The Pueblo Chieftain by Jeff Tucker announces that the new direct file law passed this spring has gone into effect. The article lists the circumstances under which a juvenile can be direct filed by a district attorney as an adult. In general, a juvenile can now be charged as an adult by a district attorney if:

1. They are between 14 and 15 and commit 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder or a violent sex offense.
2. Juveniles may also be charged directly by a district attorney if they are over 16 and commit certain felonies.

Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut complains that the new law doesn’t give District Attorneys enough discretion. Thiebaut told The Chieftan that he isn’t concerned with the 14-day waiting period that district attorneys must now adhere to in filing adult charges, but is concerned that the new law does not allow a district attorney’s office to use its discretion in choosing to file adult charges.

In a written statement to The Chieftain Thiebaut said, “Because the breadth of discretion that our legal system vests in prosecuting attorneys carries with it the potential for both individual and institutional abuse, a district attorney must be sensitive to the community norms while exercising the powers of the office, and to the broad discretion that the law vests in a district attorney’s decision-making.”

It is important to note that Thiebaut’s statement can be read several ways. If he meant to say that he has nearly as much discretion under the new law as he did under the old law, he should clarify that. If that’s not what he meant, he should be aware that the new law allows district attorneys an enormous amount of discretion.

While the enacted law lists criteria that district attorneys should follow in direct filing juveniles, it also makes absolutely clear (on page 5) that:

“The amount of weight given to each of the factors listed…is discretionary with the district attorney.”

Further, the act states (on page 7) that:

“At the discretion of the district attorney, the provisions [listed] shall not apply to charges for first degree murder…second degree murder…or any sexual offense eligible for direct file.”

The fact is that district attorneys still have TOO MUCH DISCRETION and are allowed, in effect, to be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to treating juveniles as adults. Prosecutors aren’t judges and shouldn’t be judges, but do have an ethical obligation to seek justice. Direct filing kids with no judicial review is unjust in the light of myriad studies that show kids don’t have the decision-making capacity of adults. District attorneys know that direct filing kids is wrong…they just have political reasons not to care.

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.