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.

Do you remember the scene at the end of “Wyatt Earp” where Kevin Costner holds off a lynch mob intent on stringing up a cowboy accused of murder? Me too. What I like about that scene is that it portrays a lawman who cared more for justice than he did for his own skin. He was willing to die to uphold justice. Holding off a mob would have taken some guts, but more importantly it took leadership.

The problem with the justice system in Colorado (and the nation) today is enshrined right there in the mission statements of half of the District Attorneys in the state. At www.AdamsBroomfieldDA.org the DA is charged with both “pursuing justice” and “hold[ing] the trust and respect of the citizens.” Here’s the problem folks: You can’t do both! Either the DA is a politician (nothing like Wyatt Earp) or he’s a lawman. More often than not, DAs choose to be politicians first. They’d rather “pursue” justice and fail than disappoint the mob.

I suspect that’s what has happened with the recent release of the Obama Administration’s Budget for the Department of Justice. According to a newly released report from the Justice Policy Institute, the President has completely abdicated leadership on juvenile justice issues–reducing juvenile justice and delinquency prevention funding by $133 million for FY2011. According to the report, the likely result will be:

… [less] money spent on prevention, and in innovative programs that rely less on incarceration, [which] may result in reduced public safety, more justice-involved youth, increasing racial disparities and diminished life outcomes for [...] youth [that] will impact not just themselves and their families but the health and well-being of communities and the nation as a whole.

In a nutshell: We’re sacrificing long-term solutions for short-term results that will put more kids in adult prisons and turn them into life-long criminals. DAs love this scenario because it means they’ll see half of the children they put in prison again. And the federal government has made it clear: THAT MEANS MORE FUNDING. The cycle will repeat over and over again until we put DAs in their place and let judges do their jobs.

So I’ll say it one more time, “so much for leadership; so long to justice.” We’re quickly becoming a country that prefers mob rule and political imprisonment to “separation of powers” and “justice for all.”