As this moving blog demonstrates, people who have honestly and openly wrestled with the idea of Juvenile Justice and Sentencing issues must inevitable reach a point where they see that, as our justice system stands now, it is incapable of giving youthful offenders the chance at rehabilitation that they deserve while simultaneously giving them the correction that their crime demands.

It is no surprise that we as a society find ourselves in this situation.  Life can be brutal, and especially so for children.  The number of violent crimes committed by minors is direct proof that we as a society have made some enormous errors, somewhere along the way.  For example, we rightly condemn forced sterilization, but at the same time do nothing to protect innocent babies born to drug addicted prostitute mothers.  We set up a foster care system that too often takes children from one abusive situation only to place them in a worse one.

Conservatives who preach ad nauseam about “traditional family values” are among the first in line to turn their backs on the possibility of meaningful reform to the current foster care system, preferring to insist that the state has no place coming between a child and has/her parents.  I would love to whole heartedly agree with them, but for the fact that they cannot see that their ideology depends upon the parents actually being parents.  It is not enough to insist that the government stay out of peoples lives.  What has to be realized is that the government should only stay out of peoples lives when the people show that they are capable of living those lives responsibly.  On the other hand, liberals whose hearts bleed for every young person in jail are the first to turn their backs on the very real and painful plight of the victims and their families.  Yet apart from these two view points, what else is there?

As the number of broken homes and children in foster care continues to grow, as membership in violent gangs grows, and as the number of minors behind bars increases, we as a society cannot sit back and rely on our justice system, designed for adults, to adequately dispense justice.

Yet the question remains, what else is there?  It is a heinous idea to argue that the government take some sort of active role in preventing the birth of a child into a certain set of circumstances.  It is an impossible idea to argue that any governmental, or private, entity can provide for the thousands of children trapped in our deeply flawed foster care system.  Yet again, what else is there?

Until that question is answered, miscarriages of justice in the name of being “tough on crime” will continue, young people will continue to be ineptly dealt with by a justice system not equipped or intended to deal with them, and violence and social decay will continue to advance in our national statistical studies.

It is time we looked at ourselves in the mirror and for once honestly asked ourselves to answer the question, what else is there?.

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.

Noting the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to end juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses, the Nebraska Democratic Party recently passed a resolution that adds the elimination of JLWOP to their state legislative platform.

The Nebraska resolution states, in part, that:

WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has again, in Graham v. Florida, reaffirmed the fundamental differences between youth and adults in their ability to exercise judgment, foresee consequences and resist peer pressure, and

WHEREAS the Court has also noted the greater capacity of youth to change, thereby making it impossible to determine at sentencing that a youth cannot be reformed…

THEREFORE be it resolved that the Democratic Party in Nebraska support legislative efforts to eliminate sentences of life without possibility of parole for crimes committed by a youth who has not yet reached the age of 18.

While Colorado eliminated Juvenile LWOP several years ago, the state still practices direct file and consecutive sentencing that can amount to virtual life sentences for kids. In Grand County, 15-year-old John Caudle is being tried as an adult and faces 80 years for allegedly slaying his abusive parents. Children like Caudle cannot forsee the consequences of their actions and have great capacity to learn from their mistakes. They should not, therefore, be subject to abusive practices like consecutive 40 year sentences that ultimately just mean another life lost at great taxpayer expense. Supreme Court members noted the limited scope of their decision by citing Colorado’s consecutive sentencing practices. An adult sentence, whether it is 40, 80, or 120 years for a juvenile does not account for an individual child’s capacity to change.

There is probably no soul sorrier for its master’s mistakes than is John Caudle’s. But the question is: Does his soul deserve redemption or condemnation? And is it the state of Colorado’s purview to make such lasting and ill-begotten judgments on its children? Every religion in the world teaches love and forgiveness and yet here we are as a state encouraging, seeking, enforcing and even disguising the basest revenge we can possibly imagine.  The Nebraska Democratic Party clearly isn’t afraid to face its demons. StopDirectFile.org hopes that in next legislative session, Colorado too can come to terms with its own, very fallible humanity.

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.