a public defender

It’s a different world today than it was in the ’80s, ’90s and even the early whats. The economy may or may not be recovering, but one thing is for sure: budget deficits are spiraling out of control. Crime may be down, but the workload of the criminal justice system is up. In particular, the burden on public defender systems is one that has rarely been seen before.

Whether this is a product of reduced funding, of lengthy sentences coming home to roost, of a zero-tolerance “tough on crime” policy enacted years ago or of the sheer overcriminalization of our society is an open question (my guess: a mix of them all). When a small state like CT has 1663 crimes defined in its statutes (and that’s in 2006; several more have been added since) and when books are written warning us that we commit three felonies a day, it’s time for someone to sit up and take notice. And by someone I mean those with the power to change the direction we’ve gone in: legislators and voters. So you, all of you.

The repercussions of too many people in the justice system are beginning to reverberate throughout the country: Georgia is on its 4th lawsuit to force indigent defense spending; Michigan is being sued by three defendants who claim that the lack of funding forced their public defenders to pressure them into entering pleas of guilty; the Missouri Supreme Court recently allowed public defenders the nuclear option of shutting down their doors and refusing cases if caseloads got unmanageable; the costs in Ohio are rising quick; the Fresno public defender’s office got permission to lay off 6 attorneys before the end of the year to balance their budget; and contract attorneys in Nebraska have been receiving a $100 flat fee instead of $50 per hour for all misdemeanor cases.

Should I even go near the financial black hole that is the death penalty?  How, in times where basic rights of defendants may be in jeopardy – ordinary run of the mill defendants, mind you – can we even consider sustaining the machinery of death?

This will not end anytime soon and even if there is an alleviation of the financial crisis, the impact on the criminal justice system will be temporary. More crimes will be committed, more knee-jerk reactions will be induced and harsher sentences will be given out. The burden continues to build until there is a fundamental change in the way we think about the numbers, the crimes and the system.

A report from 2000, that I’ve mentioned before, seems to have gotten it right. Too bad no one is listening. I’ll reprint the salient points:

Prison overcrowding has a cyclical pattern in Connecticut — reaching a crisis point about every 10 years. The committee report showed most of the causes of prison overcrowding occurred outside the administration and jurisdiction of the Department of Correction and these complex issues and problems cannot be addressed by a single state agency. Specifically, the program review committee identified five main causes of prison overcrowding. They are:

• Despite the decrease in arrest and crime rates, the number of offenders in prison or jail continued to increase due to the “war on drugs”, increased funding for police, increased role of victims and victim advocacy groups in the court process, added bed capacity in the correctional system, recidivism and technical violations of probation and parole, harsher penalties for certain types of crimes, and narrowed eligibility for community release and alternative sanction options.
• Convicted inmates were remaining incarcerated for a greater portion of their court-imposed prison sentences as a result of the shift from an indeterminate to a determinate sentencing structure, elimination of “good time”, creation of time-served standards for parole eligibility, and the enactment of several “truth in sentencing” initiatives.
• The aggressive “tough on crime” approach supported by the legislature and adopted by the executive and judicial branches allows the criminal justice system to narrow its use of discretion and take a more conservative and less controversial approach to punishment.
• A lack of prison beds, especially high security and pre-trial beds, forced DOC to operate at capacity.
• Poor planning and a lack of an accurate population projection and offender needs analysis contributed to the cycle of overcrowding and hampered DOC’s efforts to adequately plan for new or expanded facilities.

In reviewing options available to manage and control growth of the inmate population, the committee found Connecticut cannot build its way out of a prison overcrowding crisis. However, prison expansion is one model to address prison overcrowding. This strategy has been Connecticut’s primary response to prison overcrowding over the past 20 years. It is the simplest but least effective and most expensive approach. Services in this model are concentrated primarily on the small percent (25 percent) of the offender population in prison.

And yet here we are: more crimes, longer sentences and an almost unmanageable burden. We’re still fighting the absurd war on drugs and on parolees and probationers. While our prison population has seen somewhat of a slight decline from the record numbers of last year, it would be a tremendous mistake to consider that an improvement. The record numbers were the result of the Governor’s ban on parole. But don’t let that obscure the fact that even prior to the ban, the population numbers were already at the breaking point.

And it’s not going to get any better. Per the OPM’s most recent projections, the population is expected to increase from its current numbers to around 18, 942. [Here are the Dec 2009 monthly indicators.] The most recent breakdown of inmates by crimes is this one from 2007. And here’s the most recent recidivism study [there's a wealth of information in there if you're interested].

So how is this to be done? Over the years, I’ve made many suggestions: legalize marijuana, get realistic about prison sentences, divert all non-violent offenders into treatment and community based rehab, address the problem at its root, etc.

[Update: This NYT editorial makes the case for smart reforms, pointing to a slew of legislation pending in NJ to make the prison system more rehabilitation centric. Among some of the proposals is one akin to the ban the box idea implemented in New Haven earlier this year.]

But it’s all a futile exercise. It’s never going to happen unless there’s a fundamental shift in the thinking. That shift may well be driven by the financial engine. So how about taking a different tact. How about we keep detailed statistics: how many people end up going to jail for a violation of probation for drug problems instead of to a treatment facility? Let’s keep a record of that for 3 years and calculate the cost of sending that person to jail. How about defendants sentenced to 7 years in jail where 5 years would have been just as good. Keep a track of the costs there. How many inmates were denied entry into programs for lack of beds and so instead were forced to take a prison sentence? Let’s keep track of that.

At the end of 3 years, let’s add it all up and look at the staggering cost of our penal system. Let’s put it into real numbers and compare it to the budget shortfall. Extrapolate that over the last 20 years and I bet we will see that these “tough on crime” policies have come at a significant, tangible cost to us.

[Alternate post titles: So long and thanks for all the blog fodder; This just in: The Law now has a weak pulse]

So, it’s probably unnatural and unhealthy to be so giddy upon learning that Gov. Rell has decided not to seek re-election, but as most of you know, I can’t stand the woman. And that’s putting it mildly. I let out an audible yell yesterday when Ann Nyberg tweeted that she wasn’t going to run. My colleagues looked at me, much like they always do, like I had three heads. So maybe my disdain of the American Idol Governor knows no bounds.

But there’s good reason. After all, she has singlehandedly done so much to create such a disregard for the law and the rule of law, that sometimes I wonder who is worse: the law-breaking “criminals” she sought to protect our white community from or the law-ignoring bureaucrat.

She was the most dangerous of the “tough on crime” pols: sweet, nurturing, grandmotherly. She would lull everyone into sleep with her gentle affect and then decree the most outrageous acts of lawlessness this State has seen this decade.

First, there was Cheshire. Oh boy was there Cheshire. The brutal crimes in a white suburban neighborhood served not only to rouse the Governor from her mid-term siesta, but also had the side-effect of completely blinding her to common sense, and well, the rule of law. So the first thing she decided to do (well, sort of) was ban parole. That lasted for 4 months and resulted in severe overcrowding and a tremendous burden on state resources. That’s when Colin McEnroe coined the moniker “The American Idol Governor“. I still can’t get enough of that. She then proposed some truly scary and not very well thought out “reforms” of the criminal justice system, some of which unfortunately made it into law. Then she wanted CT to have a three-strikes law, in the face of all scientific research on its uselessness. Then came the unhinging, aka, “The David Pollitt Project“. I’m not even going to touch that. And finally, the veto of the death penalty abolition bill.

I write all of this, not to disparage her, but to remind myself and you  – voters all – of the absolute effing nonsense we’ve had to put up with these past few years. Will any of the people who’ve announced they’re running for Governor be any better? They almost have to, don’t they, because it can’t get much worse than this.

So while I wish her well in her personal life and hope that her health remains strong, I will not be sad to see her become former Governor Rell. I’m not sure there was a person less equipped to take on that job.

And now, on to the big question. What needs to be done? The first response is obvious: abolish the death penalty. But there are so many more things that need to be changed about the criminal justice system in our State. In my mind, there’s only one candidate who is qualified to do that. So, you guys can be the first to hear it: I am hereby announcing my candidacy for the Governor of the State of Connecticut and I will be running on the Smart on Crime platform for the “It must be easy; she did it for so long” party.

More details about the, well, details of my platform will follow in subsequent posts. I’m now going to go and do a cartwheel.

I tried really hard to come up with a witty title, but this is all I could muster. After a long day stuck getting re-educated [Ed. Note: Gideon's just trying to be funny. Actually was one of the most educational CLEs ever], I’m not going to try harder. Deal.

Via Scott via Doug Berman comes word of Norm Pattis’ latest article in the Law Tribune (which I might have read if someone hadn’t snagged it right away), in which he essentially argues for sentencing guidelines. Heck, the first sentence is:

Connecticut would do well to adopt comprehensive, non-mandatory sentencing guidelines in the criminal courts.

If that’s all you take away from the article, then, yes, you should go bang your head on a table or wonder if Norm’s tried any Federal cases recently.

But there’s more. What Norm is suggesting is a solution to a state-wide problem, one that I’ve written about before and one that really needs to be rectified somehow.

Here’s what he’s really complaining about:

I stagger from the courtroom to tell my client that the court cannot force the prosecutor’s hand. I cannot offer a principled explanation to this man about why another client of mine facing the same charges in a different courthouse was made a far better offer.

That’s just it. Everything in Connecticut is so…isolated. What’s a good offer in Hartford is unheard of in Waterbury. What would get accelerated rehabilitation in New Haven gets you a trial in Manchester.

Each courthouse in Connecticut is a separate entity, it’s own fiefdom. Some are run with iron fists and some with sensibility and compassion. But the results will always be different. A case that’s worth 1 year in one courthouse shouldn’t automatically become worth 7 years in another.

A long time ago, I asked what the reasons for this might be. The most popular answer was volume. Smaller courthouses have more time and resources to devote to prosecutions. Hence, a greater emphasis on adversarial litigation and demanding the moon and less on resolving the case efficiently and moving on to the next.

But that’s not all of it. As some regular readers will attest, in a few jurisdictions, the standard offers for certain crimes start in the high 30s. That’s years, not months. The same cases can get resolved in other equally busy courts for numbers in the 10s. That, squarely, rests on the shoulders of prosecutors. There are some that know they can twist the arm of every defendant, with pliant lawyers, into pleading guilty.

Sentencing guidelines, in my opinion, are a terrible idea. What Norm sees as the virtues of sentencing guidelines, I see as its pitfalls: a rigid set of rules, determining what the sentence should be for someone in an arbitrarily defined category. Sentencing guidelines remove all judicial discretion – and in good courts – prosecutorial discretion.

What he really means is that prosecutors need to stop being so varied in their assessment of cases. That judges need to grow a backbone and stop toeing the prosecutor’s line.

Maybe the next time legislators and the general public wonder why we’re spending so much money on the criminal justice system, they’ll look at the inconsistencies in prosecutions.

It would help. Sentencing guidelines won’t.

And to make you ignore everything I’ve typed thus far, here’s Pink Floyd:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwTpZpwjtIE[/youtube]

Just read a sentencing story today that I thought would make a good example for the next edition of “Judge for a Day!”

Defendant is charged with two counts of second degree robbery and four counts of third degree burglary. He robbed two Subway stores, making off with $1062 total. He was a polite robber, however, each time apologizing for robbing the stores. After the first robbery he apologized to the store clerk and thanked him and after the second one he said “I’m sorry, I have to do this.”

He robbed to keep up his prescription meds addiction, which turned into a heroin addiction when he couldn’t get any more meds.

No criminal record whatsoever; a productive member of society with a job. There was no violence during either robbery.

Remember folks, this is Connecticut – the State with the strictest sentences in the country.

What’s your sentence, Judge Commenter? There are no minimums and the max for the robbery is 10 and for the burglary is 5. But since there are multiple counts, you can run them consecutive, if you’re so inclined.

This is a post that has been in the making for a long time. It is incomplete and at times will be incoherent. These are questions, however, that I think are worth exploring and attempting to answer. So bear with me on this Sunday as I ramble.

Anyone who has followed this blog for the past year will no doubt be aware of several high profile criminal justice stories in CT: the Cheshire incident, the David Pollitt incident and the more recent New Britain incident. Starting with Cheshire, reform of the criminal justice system has been on the minds of many residents of this State, mostly pushed forward by our esteemed legislature and Governor. We were once on the path to reducing our prison population and now we are growing and bursting at the seams with no relief in sight.

Prison sentences have been beefed up to unimaginable levels in the name of public safety, rehabilitation programs have been abandoned and common sense no longer prevails.

Yet there are people who do not feel this is enough. Read the comments to any Courant article on criminal justice and you will see that there are people who feel that any sentence short of life is inappropriate.

This State, fueled by the vote-seeking legislators, has become gripped in what might be the biggest “tough on crime” wave in the country.

The paradox, however, is something that I have long suspected.

Here’s another installment of “Judge for a day”. The setup, for new readers, is simple. I give you a factual scenario, you tell me what sentence you’d impose as a judge.

The facts are as follows: Defendant is involved in a DUI accident. It is probably his fault. The other car is damaged and the occupants of that car suffer serious injuries, but none that are life threatening or that will result in permanent loss of limbs or functions. The defendant is a young adult with no prior record and good family structure and employment history.

What’s your sentence?

Since the first installment of “Judge for a day” was so successful, I’ve decided to bring it back for another round. This time, ripped right from the headlines. By now, most of you have heard of Susan M. LeFevre. LeFevre, also known as Marie Walsh, was arrested in her “hometown” of Del Mar, San Diego. Problem is, she was on the lam for 32 years. LeFevre, as she was known back in Michigan, was sentenced to a 10 to 20 year sentence back in 1974, for sale of heroin (although differing stories are emerging about her role).

One year later, she ran away from the prison, at the age of 21. Now 53, she is married with children, living a law-abiding, successful life. Now, she faces the remainder of her sentence and a corrections spokesperson said that it’s most likely that she’ll be required to serve 5 1/2 years of the time she owes.

Pretend, however, that you are the prosecutor/judge that has to decide what to do with her. She obviously escaped from prison and owes time. Since then, however, she has lived a law-abiding life and has raised a family. This was also 32 years ago. She is now 53. Important to note, also, is that her co-defendant was released on parole after serving two years of the same 10 to 20 year sentence. He was sentenced on the same day as her.

What do you do? Do you go after her hard for the escape? Or do you take into account her life and her family and the nature of the crime (drugs, after all) and her age at the time of the crime and offer to re-negotiate the deal and sentence her to something lesser, like probation and community service?

After all, one of the purposes of imprisonment is rehabilitation and prevention of future crime. She’s already shown that she’s no recidivist, so is there any point to incarceration now?

What would you do and what do you think is the just outcome in this case? I’ve already tipped my hand as to what I think should happen.

[poll id="22"]

Images from Michigan DOC and AP

The question mark is because I can’t tell from this piece what the heck actually happened. Shoddy, shoddy writing.

Under pressure to respond after two deadly home invasions in the past nine months, the state Senate voted early this morning to strengthen the state’s criminal law and allocate $10 million for enhanced crime-fighting.

The bill passed by 32 to 3 at about 2:20 a.m. Thursday after the Senate Democrats withdrew a previous amendment that had prompted a sharply bitter debate with Republicans. The final version gained bipartisan support after lawmakers said the bill would authorize a judge to double the penalty following a second violent crime and triple the penalty after a third offense – up to a maximum of life in prison for a violent felon.

The debate on the three-strikes bill had the usual rhetoric from the Republicans that criminals are not being punished. The Dems responded with “bumper sticker politics”.

So what happened, exactly?

Earlier in the evening, the Republicans had verbally pummeled the original bill on the Senate floor, saying that it would actually weaken the state’s laws for violent crimes. Following that clash, Democrats — who hold the majority in the chamber — suddenly postponed the debate and called for a recess shortly before 11:30 p.m. The chamber reconvened later, and the “three strikes” debate pushed the vote past 2 a.m. Thursday.

“This is an extraordinary change in our public policy,” McDonald said, adding that criminals “will be punished in extraordinary ways.”

But Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican, said the original bill was so badly written that it would not accomplish the legislature’s tough-on-crime goals and, in fact, would backfire.

“I guess I’m missing something,” Kissel said. “It actually is weaker addressing persistent dangerous felony offenders. … This amendment pushes us backward. How can this be tougher on criminals? It’s not.”

Out of 21 violent crimes mentioned in the original bill, the maximum prison sentence would actually be reduced for eight of them, Kissel said. That includes second-degree manslaughter with a firearm, among others.

Oh well, that’s interesting. Pray tell us, Courant, why these sentences would be reduced and what other crimes?

No? That’s not important to the narrative? Oh. Okay. Well, then tell us what the final version of the bill was.

Besides streamlining the law, the bill provides money for more prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers, along with expanding the state’s “cold case” unit and providing additional re-entry programs for criminals who are released from prison.

“So many people fail on probation,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat. “So many people fail on parole.”

But McKinney said he was stunned when he read the original five-page bill. Currently, a criminal could receive 40 years in prison for compelling someone to have sex at gunpoint. The bill, crafted by Democrats, would reduce that penalty to 20 years, he said.

Wait. I’m confused. Is this the original version, the amendment that was scrapped or the final version? Don’t know? I don’t either. Good job there, Chris Keating, Capitol Bureau Chief. Now I know less than I did when I started reading your story.

Can you condense all of this into bullet points for stupid old me?

# $5,492,000 to improve supervision of sex offenders who are on probation, including upgraded lie-detector and global-positioning-system (GPS) technologies. The money also would be used for truancy prevention and helping officials serve warrants on probation violators.
# $2,147,000 to hire more parole officers and prison guards, along plus expanding the use of GPS technology to track criminals who are on parole.
# $910,000 for the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to provide supportive housing and for improving the women’s jail-diversion program, among others.
# $681,000 to the Division of Criminal Justice for more prosecutors and better computers.
# $514,000 to hire more employees for the state police major crime squad.
# $252,000 to the Public Defender Service Commission for lawyers to handle more prosecutions and aide indigent criminals.

Yet nothing on penalties. Sigh.

Oh, by the way Chris Keating, Capitol Bureau Chief, the correct term would have been “indigent defendants“, not criminals. Unless, of course, this bill removed the presumption of innocence. Which I have no way of knowing whether it did or not, because I didn’t understand anything you wrote.

Anyone have a link to the actual bill that was passed?

Update: Answer in the comments

Here’s a fun little game. I give you a scenario, you tell me what the sentence should be.

Defendant is accused of sexually assaulting and kidnapping (as in restraining) his friend’s girlfriend. This is a classic he said/she said case. He says she consented, she says she did not. Both sides have credibility issues and there is no allegation of threat, force or violence. Absolutely no egregious facts. The defendant is acquitted of the kidnapping and convicted of the rape. The defendant has no criminal record, is in his late 20s – early 30s, is educated, held a steady job and is a family man. The maximum sentence allowable is 20 years and the minimum that must be imposed is 2 years.

What do you think is appropriate and why?

By a 25-16 vote, the Judiciary Committee voted against one three-strikes proposal today. The bill called for mandatory life sentence for third time offenders.

Opponents said the revamped three-strikes-and-you’re-out proposal was deceiving because it would not automatically require a life sentence for a third violent offense. The bill still gave prosecutors the discretion to decide whether to charge someone under the law.

And committee co-chairman Rep. Michael Lawlor said prosecutors have told lawmakers they would rarely use such a law.

“The bottom line is, this is very misleading,” said Lawlor, D-East Haven.

Another reason legislators gave for the down vote was that they had just recently tinkered with the persistent offender statute and not enough time has passed to evaluate whether that works or not:

Connecticut already has a law on the books addressing repeat offenders. During a special session in January, where many Cheshire-related reforms were passed, lawmakers tinkered with the law. They passed a version that removed a requirement that a judge make certain findings before imposing up to a life sentence for third-time offenders. That law takes effect March 1.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, the other committee co-chairman, said lawmakers should wait and see if that works.

“We are trying to fix something that we don’t know as yet is broken,” said McDonald, D-Stamford.

A new study released today by the Pew Center reports that 1 in 99.1 Americans is in prison. From the press release:

For the first time in history more than one in every 100 adults in America are in jail or prison—a fact that significantly impacts state budgets without delivering a clear return on public safety.  According to a new report released today by the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, at the start of 2008, 2,319,258 adults were held in American prisons or jails, or one in every 99.1 men and women, according to the study.  During 2007, the prison population rose by more than 25,000 inmates.  In addition to detailing state and regional prison growth rates, Pew’s report, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008, identifies how corrections spending compares to other state investments, why it has increased, and what some states are doing to limit growth in both prison populations and costs while maintaining public safety.

As prison populations expand, costs to states are on the rise.  Last year alone, states spent more than $49 billion on corrections, up from $11 billion 20 years before.   However, the national recidivism rate remains virtually unchanged, with about half of released inmates returning to jail or prison within three years.  And while violent criminals and other serious offenders account for some of the growth, many inmates are low-level offenders or people who have violated the terms of their probation or parole.

“For all the money spent on corrections today, there hasn’t been a clear and convincing return for public safety,” said Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project.  “More and more states are beginning to rethink their reliance on prisons for lower-level offenders and finding strategies that are tough on crime without being so tough on taxpayers.”

Take a look at these numbers:

1 out of every 9 black men between the ages of 20-34 is in prison

1 out of every 54 men above the age of 18 is in prison

Over the last two years, CT’s prison population has grown by 1.1%, putting it slightly below middle of the pack.

CT’s spending on corrections is 4.4% of its total budget expenditures.

CT is also one of five states that spent more on corrections than on higher education.

So what are states doing about it? From page 22 of the report – there are three options: (1) diverting low-risk offenders from prison, (2) reducing the stay of low-risk offenders and (3) a combination of the two.

This is a fantastic report and a must-read.

H/T: SL & P

Update: Here’s a copy

CT death row inmates’ racial and geographical disparity challenge to the death penalty survived a motion to dismiss. The challenge was made under provisions of both the Connecticut and Federal Constitutions. That might be what saved it (among other things).

In his decision, Judge Stanley T. Fuger Jr. said Connecticut’s constitution affords defendants greater legal rights than the U.S. Constitution, so, therefore, they have the right to present the kind of systemwide bias evidence that the 1987 ruling barred.

“Connecticut is not closing its eyes to this claim as most state courts have done,” said David Baldus, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law who has studied bias in the death penalty in four states and in the city of Philadelphia. “So that’s why this is an unusual case. Unusual and important.”

This is a serious issue and perhaps it wouldn’t have been the wisest thing to dismiss the claims, as Judge Fuger recognizes:

“In the instant case, the petitioners allege that they are to be deprived of their lives in a proceeding that has been tainted by the imposition of improper racial determinations,” Fuger wrote in his decision. “The stakes are, therefore, extraordinarily high for these petitioners and merit the closest of scrutiny before throwing the complaint out of court without any opportunity to provide the validity of the claims.”

Previous coverage here, here, here and here.

Meet Jacob Ind. Jacob is one of 46 teens sentenced to life without parole in Colorado, pursuant to a statute that has since been repealed. The facts surrounding his conviction are pretty gruesome. He hired a fellow student to kill his mother and step-father, both of whom levied years of abuse on Jacob – emotional from the mother and sexual from the step-father. But you can do your own research on that if you’re interested.

At the age of 15, Jacob was sentenced to LWOP. He was featured in a PBS documentary and now Lisa at Compassion in Juvenile Sentencing has been corresponding with Jacob. The result is an 8-part series of posts, which feature his responses on topics ranging from how to survive inside prison, whether supermax is really for the “worst of the worst”, how the prison system isn’t designed to help teens along the right path, what he dreads most each day, what he dreams about doing if he gets out and, ofcourse, his coming to terms with his actions.

An absolute must read for those who are interested in prison culture and the impact that lengthy periods of incarceration have on teens. Jacob seems to have come around and developed into an intelligent, articulate individual, but think of the many that are not. Here’s a sampling, but for the full series (and you really should read all the posts), go to Lisa’s blog:

What is hard on the young minority kids coming into prison is that they’re expected to remain loyal to their gang and some of the older gang members are not above exploiting the youthful urge to be accepted and to fit in. Black youth seem to be better off than Mexican kids because the Nation of Islam has enough of a following in here that if a Black kid chooses to drop his gang for The Nation, he’ll mostly be left alone. The Mexican kids don’t have a group like that, so if they leave their gangs they do so without any support. Prison is a scary place and with all the other pressures on a kid, he is not likely to abandon his support group.

That’s the boat Andrew Medina was in. If it wasn’t for the new mental health program which sidestepped the draconian members of the review board, he’d still be there. [Andrew Medina was shown on the Frontline Special, “When Kids Get Life” in May of 2007. At that time he had been in Supermax for over five years. He has subsequently been moved to General Population in the Centennial facility in Colorado]. That guy took his classes and stayed out of trouble, but it didn’t matter. He was young, looks very young, and has life so he wasn’t fit to be released. DOC locks away its perceived problems instead of dealing with them. It is far easier to send kids to Supermax instead of creating programs suited for their adjustment to prison… Juvenile systems country-wide manage to deal with it without resorting to Supermax prisons, but then again, juvenile systems are designed to deal with kids, adult prison isn’t.

…

A big part of that was taking responsibility for my actions. I had felt no responsibility for killing my parents and hurting so many people as a result. It was their fault I killed them, they shouldn’t have treated me like they did. I ended up trying to convince myself that I was acting in vengeance against two absolutely evil creatures with no human worth – I glorified myself and dehumanized them. Becoming a man I could be proud of required that I be honest with myself. I acted out of weakness and fear and my parents, despite their actions, were just very hurt people trying to deal with their own demons. My actions weren’t noble and pure, they were ignorant, hurtful and wrong. Putting myself in the shoes of those I’ve hurt gave me a whole new perspective.

The OLR has been doing some terrific work that I have been neglecting. One example is this report dated January 18, ‘08, titled essentially the same as the title of this post. Another is this report on the cost of incarceration broken down by correctional facility and the cost of a career criminal (answer: Northern CI, where it costs $100k to incarcerate one inmate for one year). All of the criminal justice reports are collected here. I’m still looking for data on racial disparities at sentencing, either in CT or elsewhere in the country.

The racial breakdown data is interesting and is reproduced after the jump.

Lionel Tate, sentenced to life without parole at age 14 is back in prison after pleading guilty to holding up a pizza delivery man. Tate was sentenced to life for an incident that occurred when he was 12, in which a 6 year old girl was killed. Tate alleged that she died as a result of wrestling moves gone wrong. He’s just 20 now.

Tate spent three years in prison before he was released pursuant to a new plea agreement. But by then, had a troubled child been lost forever?

Certainly, a life was lost and it is probably indisputable that Tate was responsible to some degree. But what punishment does that warrant? Especially for someone that young? Is putting such a young child in prison the right thing to do in this circumstance? If found guilty, he must “pay”, certainly, but with overwhelming evidence of the slow development of adolescents (he wasn’t even a teen when this happened), should the appropriate sentence have been some form of strong rehabilitation?

We’ve all read the studies and reports that lay out the detrimental impact of housing juveniles and non-violent offenders with violent offenders – the uninitiated emerge from such situations hardened; no better than they were before they went in.

So was this new crime committed by Tate a foregone conclusion? Should we be surprised or even disappointed? Did the three years he spent in the company of older, more experienced criminals wipe away any hope of him leading a productive life? (I have been unable to discover whether he spent those three years in prison or some sort of juvenile detention facility. Let us assume he spent them in a real prison, for he is certainly not the only juvenile to be sentenced to such illustrious company.)

Tell an adult that he is a bad person often enough and he’ll start acting like it. One can only speculate with fear the impact it has on a 12-year old.

Should Tate’s case illustrate the need for more nuanced punishment schemes? Or is he undeserving of any lifeline, despite his tender age? Was the future etched in stone when he entered that prison?

I don’t know the answer, but it’s certainly worth thinking about.