Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:33 am
Time: 11:33 am
Results for juvenile sentencing
9 results foundAuthor: Scott, Elizabeth S. Title: The Supreme Court and the Transformation of Juvenile Sentencing Summary: In the past decade, the Supreme Court has transformed the constitutional landscape of juvenile crime regulation. In three strongly worded opinions, the Court held that imposing harsh criminal sentences on juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In combination, these cases create a special status for juveniles under Eighth Amendment doctrine as a category of offenders whose culpability is mitigated by their youth and immaturity, even for the most serious offenses. The Court also emphasized that juveniles are more likely to reform than adult offenders, and that most should be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that they have done so. In short, because of young offenders’ developmental immaturity, harsh sentences that may be suitable for adult criminals are seldom appropriate for juveniles. These opinions announce a powerful constitutional principle—that “children are different” for purposes of criminal punishment. In articulating this principle, the Supreme Court has also provided general guidance to courts sentencing juveniles and to lawmakers charged with implementing the rulings. At the same time, the Court did not directly address the specifics of implementation and it left many questions unanswered about the implications of the opinions for juvenile sentencing regulation. In the years since Roper, Graham, and Miller, courts and legislatures have struggled to interpret the opinions and to create procedures and policies that are compatible with constitutional principles and doctrine. This report addresses the key issues facing courts and legislatures under this new constitutional regime, and provides guidance based on the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment analysis and on the principles the Court has articulated. •Part I begins with the constitutional sentencing framework, grounded in the opinions and embodying the key elements of the Court’s analysis. It then explains the underlying developmental knowledge that supports the constitutional framework and the “children are different” principle. •Part II Part II examines how courts and legislatures have responded to the Eighth Amendment opinions, through reforms of state laws regulating juvenile life without parole (JLWOP). While some state lawmakers appear to ignore or subvert the Supreme Court’s holdings, others have responded in ways that clearly embody the principles underlying Miller and Graham. •Part III translates Miller’s directive that specific factors be considered in making individualized sentencing decisions. The report's aim is to guide courts and clinicians in structuring sentencing hearings that incorporate sound developmental research and other evidence supporting or negating mitigation, without going beyond the limits of science. •Part IV explores the broader implications of the Supreme Court’s developmental framework for juvenile sentencing and parole, implications that have already sparked law reforms beyond the relatively narrow holdings of Graham and Miller. •Finally, the paper ends on a cautionary note, pointing to evidence that constitutionally sound, developmentally-based policies may be vulnerable to political and other pressures. Aside from mandates in the holdings themselves, reforms can be dismantled or discounted if conditions change. Measures to sustain the current trend in law reform are discussed. Details: New York: Columbia University, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: http://modelsforchange.net/publications/778?utm_source=%2ftransformation&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=redirect Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://modelsforchange.net/publications/778?utm_source=%2ftransformation&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=redirect Shelf Number: 136947 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Sentencing |
Author: Mills, John R. Title: No Hope: Re-examining Lifetime Sentences for Juvenile Offenders Summary: In a handful of U.S. counties, teenagers are still being sentenced to a lifetime in prison with no chance of release. This harsh and increasingly isolated practice falls disproportionately on black and Hispanic youth and is a remnant of an earlier period of punitiveness based on an unfounded prediction of a new class of superpredators that never actually materialized. While the use of this sentence has dramatically declined in recent years, it continues to be practiced in a relatively small number of jurisdictions. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to declare juvenile life without parole a cruel and unusual punishment, far outside our standards of decency in the twenty-first century. In Miller v. Alabama, the Court took the first step by forbidding mandatory sentences of life without parole for homicide offenses committed by juveniles (JLWOP). The opinion, however, left open the question of whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of life without parole upon juveniles entirely. That question, the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders, is being presented to the Court in two cases. In one case to be argued in October, the Court will consider whether its earlier rulings on this subject apply to past cases and not just cases going forward. A brief offered by the Charles Hamilton Institute for Race and Justice urges the Court to tackle the constitutional question of whether the punishment should stand at all. In another case, an inmate serving a JLWOP sentence has directly presented the question: "Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit sentencing a child to life without possibility of parole?" This report examines the key evidence for answering the question of whether there is now a national consensus against juvenile life without parole. To make this assessment, the Court generally examines legislative enactments and actual sentencing practices. This report catalogs the rapid abandonment of JLWOP, both legislatively and in terms of actual use. Although JLWOP dramatically expanded between 1992 and 1999 - an era of hysteria over juvenile super-predators—since Miller states have rapidly abandoned JLWOP in law and practice. Nine states have abolished JLWOP after Miller, bringing the current number of jurisdictions completely banning the sentence to fifteen. California and Florida, two of the most frequent users of the sentence, have dramatically limited the reach of JLWOP by restricting its application to a narrow set of circumstances. Moreover, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington have abolished JLWOP for a category of offenders. This pace of abolition far outstrips those that occurred in the years prior to the high Court's rulings that the executions of juveniles and the intellectually disabled are unconstitutional. This report provides an in-depth analysis of state and county JLWOP sentencing practices. At the state level, just nine states account for over eighty percent of all JLWOP sentences. A single county, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, is responsible for nearly ten percent of all JLWOP sentences nationwide. Orleans Parish, Louisiana, has tenfold the number of JLWOP sentences as its population would suggest. Five counties account for more than one fifth of all JLWOP sentences. JLWOP, in practice, is isolated in a handful of outlier jurisdictions. Finally, state sentencing practices also show marked racial disparities in JLWOP's administration. Starting in 1992, the beginning of the super-predator era, a black juvenile offender would be twice as likely to receive a JLWOP sentence as his white counterpart. The disproportionate application of the punishment on juveniles of color is stark. All of Texas's JLWOP sentences were imposed on persons of color. Pennsylvania has imposed it eighty percent of the time on persons of color. There is now a growing consensus against JLWOP, calling into question its constitutionality. The policy's suspect origins and disparate implementation require rigorous examination to determine whether it serves any legitimate penological purpose. Details: Durham, NC: Phillips Black Project, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/5600cc20e4b0f36b5caabe8a/1442892832535/JLWOP+2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/5600cc20e4b0f36b5caabe8a/1442892832535/JLWOP+2.pdf Shelf Number: 136976 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleMinority GroupsRacial Disparities |
Author: Phillips Black Project Title: Juvenile Life Without Parole After Miller v. Alabama Summary: Across the country, we are beginning to turn the page on juvenile justice policies that are out of step with science, medicine, and common sense. They were informed by the popular myth of the juvenile superpredator. The prophesied generation of superpredators has never materialized, and the promised benefits of criminalizing childhood never arrived. The policies the myth spawned, however, remain. The results of these polices have been troubling. They created a straight line from poorly funded schools to juvenile hall and on to the institutions of adult mass incarceration. Our nation's least-advantaged children, the children of poverty, mental illness, and historically discriminated against groups, have fared the worst under these policies. Children of color have been disproportionately adjudicated as delinquents and institutionalized while their peers were far more frequently allowed to work things out without involving courts and jails. We stripped courts and prosecutors of the discretion required to provide treatment tailored to juveniles' individual needs, blinding our institutions to the reality that children are fundamentally different than adults. And we have sentenced thousands of our nation's youth to die in prison for crimes they committed before they were old enough to vote. The time for change has come. Courts and legislatures are rejecting the most extreme policies that were the product of this era. The use of life without parole sentences for children is waning. Solitary confinement for children is ending. Legislators are promulgating laws permitting courts and prosecutors to treat children differently than adults. And courts are now being required to exercise discretion in light of the unique aspects of the individual child before imposing the most severe sentences authorized for juveniles. This report focuses on this last development. The report catalogues how U.S. jurisdictions have responded to the Supreme Court’s mandate to provide individualized sentencing of juveniles before sentencing them to life without possibility of parole. Even as we developed this report, states abandoned the practice of sentencing children to die in prison. We hope that the applicability of this report to juvenile life without parole sentencing will continue to decrease as juvenile life without parole sentences become exceedingly rare. However, we have focused on this mandate because it is premised on the need for individualized consideration at sentencing. We are each more than the worst thing we have ever done, a reality particularly salient for impetuous youth. When sentencing judges are able to consider a juvenile for who that person is as a unique individual and are able to tailor treatment accordingly, the mythical superpredator disappears, and a juvenile justice system very different than the one we currently have will emerge. Details: St. Louis, MO: Phillips Black Project, 2015. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2015 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/55f9d0abe4b0ab5c061abe90/1442435243965/Juvenile+Life+Without+Parole+After+Miller++.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/55f9d0abe4b0ab5c061abe90/1442435243965/Juvenile+Life+Without+Parole+After+Miller++.pdf Shelf Number: 137030 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleMiller v. Alabama |
Author: Eren, Ozkan Title: Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles Summary: Employing the universe of juvenile court decisions in a U.S. state between 1996 and 2012, we analyze the effects of emotional shocks associated with unexpected outcomes of football games played by a prominent college team in the state. We investigate the behavior of judges, the conduct of whom should, by law, be free of personal biases and emotions. We find that unexpected losses increase disposition (sentence) lengths assigned by judges during the week following the game. Unexpected wins, or losses that were expected to be close contests ex-ante, have no impact. The effects of these emotional shocks are asymmetrically borne by black defendants. We present evidence that the results are not influenced by defendant or attorney behavior or by defendants' economic background. Importantly, the results are driven by judges who have received their bachelor's degrees from the university with which the football team is affiliated. Different falsification tests and a number of auxiliary analyses demonstrate the robustness of the findings. These results provide evidence for the impact of emotions in one domain on a behavior in a completely unrelated domain among a uniformly highly-educated group of individuals (judges), with decisions involving high stakes (sentence lengths). They also point to the existence of a subtle and previously-unnoticed capricious application of sentencing. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 22611: Accessed September 7, 2016 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22611.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22611.pdf Shelf Number: 147856 Keywords: JudgesJudicial SentencingJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingSports |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: False Hope: How Parole Systems Fail Youth Serving Extreme Sentences Summary: In our inflated U.S. prison system, parole is supposed to provide an incentive and a path to earn release from prison. Instead, in many states, the parole system is defective and reflexively denies release even to model prisoners who went to prison as teenagers, have already served decades in prison, and no longer pose a safety risk. After growing up in prison, atoning for their crimes, staying out of trouble, and completing all available rehabilitative programming, thousands of people who were sentenced when they were young are finding that the promise of parole is an illusion, no matter what they do to prove their worthiness for release. These young people will needlessly grow old and die behind bars when the parole system fails to do what it is intended to do: identify and release those who have worked for redemption and earned a second chance at freedom. Despite extensive research that youth who commit even serious, violent offenses age out of crime and can be rehabilitated, our nation still incarcerates tens of thousands of people who were teenagers or in their early twenties at the time of their offense and are serving life or de facto life in prison. For most of these individuals, the only real chance for release and to be reunited with their families comes from parole. However, prisoners incarcerated since their youth are routinely denied parole, long after they’ve grown, matured, atoned, and been rehabilitated, and in many cases, solely because of the crime they committed in their youth—not because of who they are now. Parole boards are charged with the ultimate decision of who to release and when, but too often, they operate in obscurity, with little guidance and too much political pressure. In many cases, decisions about release are made in a matter of minutes, without ever meeting the applicant, and with no opportunity to evaluate the individual’s record. These parole boards, composed of a handful of people tasked with tens of thousands of cases each year, have tremendous power but little incentive to grant release, even to people who are fully rehabilitated, have served decades of their sentence, and pose no risk to the community. Even for people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles, the parole grant rates are abysmally low—for example, 0.5 percent of juvenile lifers were granted parole in Florida in 2015, and in Maryland, none have been granted parole in 20 years. But despite this dismal picture, reforms to the parole system are possible and can ensure that deserving individuals, sentenced in their youth, will get a fair, meaningful chance to be released and reunited with their families. Instead of allowing these individuals to grow old and die in prison, the parole process can reward and incentivize rehabilitation and honor our moral obligation to those we send away to grow up in prison. Details: New York: ACLU, 2016. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/report/report-false-hope-how-parole-systems-fail-youth-serving-extreme-sentences Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/report/report-false-hope-how-parole-systems-fail-youth-serving-extreme-sentences Shelf Number: 146275 Keywords: Juvenile JusticeJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ParoleJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Judging Maturity: exploring the role of maturity in the sentencing of young adults Summary: substantial and growing evidence base has found that young adults aged 18-25 are a distinct group, largely because they are still maturing. Reaching adulthood is a process, not an event, and the key markers of adulthood, such as independent living, employment and establishing relationships, happen at different times for different young people. Young adults face an increased risk of exposure to the criminal justice system compared to older adults. Contact with the criminal justice system also raises the risk of adverse outcomes for young people and increases their risk of reoffending. Although hundreds of thousands of young adults are sentenced each year, in contrast to the wealth of guidance and case law concerning the sentencing of children, there is no set of principles to guide sentencers through this process or ensure that they take a tailored approach to young adults. The sentencing process presents an opportunity to apply the wealth of expertise concerning the development of young adults to achieve better outcomes. Senior court judgments and guidance concerning children, which acknowledge the reduced culpability of a person who is not yet fully mature, set a blueprint for an approach that could be consolidated and applied to young adults. This research explores 174 senior court judgments with a view to capturing current judicial treatment of young adults, with a particular focus on how judges view the concept of maturity. Key findings from the sample show: - In almost half of all sentence appeal cases involving young adults neither age nor maturity were considered. - The inclusion of age and/or lack of maturity in sentencing council guidance has not made a significant difference as to whether or not maturity is considered. - Where the relevant sentencing guideline included age and/or lack of maturity, and the court considered that factor, it was more likely to result in a reduction in the sentence on appeal. In addition, the research explored a number of references by the Attorney General in respect of sentences deemed to be unduly lenient and judgments reviewing the positive maturation of young adults who committed the offence of murder as a child. These cases illustrate that the courts are capable of taking a nuanced and thoughtful approach based on the actual development of the individual. The research suggests that professionals need to be encouraged to bring these factors to the court's attention and sentencers need to be encouraged to consider these factors of their own will. It also indicates that guidelines can make a positive difference and empower sentencers to reduce sentences on account of lack of maturity and/or age. To bring about this change, the Sentencing Council should work towards developing formal sentencing principles for young adults, similar to the principles that are in place for children. Details: London: The Howard League, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 31, 2017 at: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Judging-maturity.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Judging-maturity.pdf Shelf Number: 146627 Keywords: Juvenile SentencingMaturityYoung Adult OffendersYouthful Offenders |
Author: Oregon Justice Resource Center Title: Youth and Measure 11 in Oregon: Impacts of Mandatory Minimums Summary: For more than twenty years, people convicted under Oregon's Measure 11 law have faced mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. Children as young as 15 can be charged under Measure 11 and prosecuted as adults. A new report, published by the Oregon Council on Civil Rights in collaboration with us, takes an in-depth look at the impact of Measure 11 on Oregon's young people and whether the law is out-of-step with legal and scientific developments of recent years. This report looks at Measure 11 and its impact on youth from a variety of perspectives for a thorough review. It includes: Brain Science - While research shows that young people's brains aren't fully developed until their mid-to-late 20s, Measure 11 allows children to be sentenced as though they had the culpability of adults. The report looks at how scientific understanding of development has grown and how the law should respond. Legal Developments - A series of US Supreme Court decisions has prompted an overhaul of youth sentencing laws in light of growing understanding of brain science. More than half of states have changed sentencing laws for youth to respond to the updated Supreme Court decisions, but not Oregon. Interviews with Youth - We spoke to young people who are currently serving sentences following Measure 11 convictions about their experiences in the criminal justice system, their backgrounds, what led up to their offenses and how much they understood during the legal process. Data Analysis - Analysis of data tracked since Measure 11 began in 1995 shows disproportionate impact on Oregon youth of color. Figures from 2012 reveal black youth were 26 times more likely to be indicted for a Measure 11 offense than their white counterparts. RECOMMENDATIONS - "Youth and Measure 11 in Oregon" recommends four reforms to address problems with Measure 11 and youth sentencing in Oregon: Remove all youth from automatic adult prosecution under Measure 11 and return Oregon to a "discretionary waiver" system." This would put much-needed discretion back in the hands of judges, in contrast with the current system that allows prosecutors sweeping authority to decide how to prosecute Oregon youth. This modest reform would still allow judges to levy severe sentences against serious child offenders, but would restore the court's ability to look at the mitigating circumstances particular to each case. More transparent data collection from prosecutors' offices and law enforcement. One critical problem with prosecutors' vast discretionary power is that: "[their] offices are mostly a black box with little transparency." 3 4 Police officers similarly share a key role as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system. To facilitate smart, data-driven policy-making, counties across the state should provide demographic data on youth referrals to prosecutors' offices. In addition, they should provide the public with more descriptive information about felony filings to adult court, updated annually. Give all young people the option of a "second-look hearing." Every young person should have the chance to prove to a judge that they can grow and change. The U.S. Supreme Court, relying on the most up-to-date cognitive science available, has said clearly that young people have a tremendous capacity for change and positive growth, regardless of the severity of their crimes. Measure 11 has stripped away the opportunity for young people to demonstrate this potential. A second-look hearing not only allows youth to prove their positive change in front of a judge, but also presents a clear incentive for good behavior and a start on the path toward rehabilitation while in custody. This commonsense approach also recognizes the reality that nearly all Measure 11 youth will, at some point, return to society. Addressing root causes. - Oregon should boost investment in safety net programs that decrease involvement with the criminal justice system. In addition, Oregon should expand access to job training and programs that foster non-violent problem solving so that young people can avoid harsh sentences in the first place. Along with preventative measures, stakeholders throughout the criminal justice system - including judges, prosecutors, public defenders and law enforcement - should be trained in trauma-informed care, cultural responsivity and brain development. Details: Portland: Oregon Justice Resource Center, 2018. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2018 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5a6fbb95c830254f3376ef75/1517272032695/Youth+and+Measure+11+in+Oregon+Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5a6fbb95c830254f3376ef75/1517272032695/Youth+and+Measure+11+in+Oregon+Final.pdf Shelf Number: 148955 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile SentencingMandatory MinimumsWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)Young Adult Offenders |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Title: Children and Adolescents in the United States' Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: 1. As a result of its visits and of the information it received, the IACHR observes that a significant number of children are being consistently treated as adults in the U.S. criminal justice system, in violation of their basic right to special protection and to be tried in a specialized juvenile system1. This issue is the main focus of this report. The IACHR has also observed that this phenomenon of child criminal defendants being treated as adults is part of a broader nationwide pattern in the United States of failure to protect and promote the rights of children, and failure to uniformly define "child" under the law in order to protect the fundamental human rights persons under the age of 18. 2. The United States has played an important role in promoting and establishing a specialized approach to youth within the criminal justice system, with the aim of rehabilitating, rather than simply punishing, youth who are convicted of a crime. The world's first juvenile court division was created in the U.S. state of Illinois in 1899, and within 25 years all but two of the states had followed suit and established similar juvenile court systems. However, the Commission notes with grave concern that in the 1980s, this began to change. By the year 1990, many states across the U.S. had passed highly regressive changes to their legislation and policy with regard to youth involved in the justice system. The changes varied in the details of their implementation, but the broad theme was the denial of access to rehabilitative juvenile justice systems, and consequent mandatory processing of juveniles in the more punitive adult systems. 3. The Commission notes with grave concern that according to the information it received, as a result of state laws requiring or allowing youth in conflict with the law to be tried as adults, an estimated 200,000 children and adolescents in conflict with the law are tried in adult criminal courts each year in the United States. The IACHR is aware that the majority of U.S. states still have laws, policies, and practices in place that enable them to incarcerate children in adult facilities. The Commission is also gravely concerned about the lack of data available regarding children in contact with the adult criminal system. 4. According to information received by the Commission, there are three main ways in which children and adolescents enter the adult criminal justice system in the United States, based on the particular legislation of each state. First, by way of laws that grant jurisdiction to the adult criminal courts for persons under 18 years of age. Second, through laws that allow for a child's case to be transferred from the juvenile system to the adult system. Third, as a result of hybrid sentencing laws that operate between the jurisdictions of the adult and juvenile systems, as well as other provisions with similar effect, such as "once an adult, always an adult" laws. 5. According to the information received by the Commission, the rights of children and adolescents who are charged with committing crimes in the U.S. are not duly protected at each stage of the proceedings, which in turn, has further negative consequences for those who are transferred and sentenced in the adult system. In particular, the IACHR has received information regarding: the absence of quality legal counsel; the possibility that youth can waive their right to legal representation; the fact that youth undergo long periods of time awaiting the disposition of their cases; and the possibility that many youth end up in the adult system as a result of plea agreements, without fully comprehending the consequences of such agreements. 6. In light of the information it received and examined, the IACHR finds that under the current state of the law in the U.S. related to children in contact with the criminal justice system, certain laws, policies, and practices have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on certain groups, resulting in the over-representation of members of such groups in the criminal justice system. This is the case for children who are tried in the adult criminal justice system and confined in adult detention facilities. According to information received by the Commission, these disparities increase with each step further into the criminal justice system, beginning with arrest and referral to the juvenile system, through transfer to adult courts, to sentencing and confinement in adult correctional facilities. 7. States are not legally required to separate youth from adults in adult facilities. While the federal law for juvenile justice, i.e., the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) as reauthorized in 2002, does establish the separation of youth from adults as one of its core custody-related requirements, its provisions do not apply to children and adolescents in the adult system. This has very detrimental and grave impacts on children and adolescents, among them, according to information reported by several large jails and prisons systems, more than 10% of the children housed there are subjected to solitary confinement, while smaller facilities have reported that 100% of the children they hold are in isolation. Furthermore, no federal or state legislation in the United States prohibits solitary confinement of youth held in adult facilities; only a few states expressly refer to the use of isolation in their statutes. 8. Multiple studies in the United States have shown that adult jails and prisons are detrimental for children, as these facilities are designed for adults and are not equipped to keep children safe from the elevated risks of abuse and harm that they face inside them. Some of these include: youth are five times more likely to suffer sexual abuse or rape in an adult facility as compared to those held in juvenile facilities. Youth incarcerated in adult facilities are also twice as likely to be physically abused by correctional staff, have a 50% higher chance of being attacked with a weapon, and have a high probability of witnessing or being the target of violence committed by other prisoners. 9. This report will examine the situations in which U.S. law fails to protect the rights of children in the criminal justice system. In this context, the IACHR will analyze provisions in U.S. legislation that apply to children, in light of the State's international obligations to protect and guarantee the human rights of children and adolescents before the criminal law, particularly the right to be treated as children. Details: Washington, DC: The Commission, 2018. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2018 at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Shelf Number: 153513 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingRights of ChildrenWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)Young Adult Offenders |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: 'Crossover Kids': Vulnerable children in the youth justice system: Report 1: Children who are known to Child Protection among sentenced and diverted children in the Victorian Children’s Court Summary: This is the first of two reports by the Sentencing Advisory Council looking at the child protection backgrounds of children who received a sentence or diversion in the Victorian Children's Court in 2016 or 2017. The project aims to explore the pathways that lead children as young as 10 into the criminal justice system and better understand the vulnerable backgrounds of children who are sentenced in the Children's Court. Research questions -- The report answers the following questions: 1. Prevalence of 'crossover kids' in the youth justice system: What proportion of children sentenced or diverted in the Children's Court in 2016 and 2017 (the 'study group') were known to the child protection service? Specifically, in the period from 18 June 1996 to 3 September 2018, what proportion of children: (a) were the subject of a child protection report? (b) were the subject of a child protection report that was investigated? (c) were the subject of a child protection report that was substantiated? (d) were the subject of a child protection order made in the Children's Court? (e) experienced out-of-home care, including residential care? 2. Over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children: What proportion of sentenced and diverted children known to the child protection service were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children? 3. Sentence type and child protection involvement: What proportion of children sentenced to specific sentence types were known to the child protection service? 4. Age at first sentence and child protection involvement: Are children first sentenced at a young age more likely than older children to be known to the child protection service? Details: Melbourne: Author, 2019. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2019 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Crossover_Kids_Report_1_1.pdf Year: 2019 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Crossover_Kids_Report_1_1.pdf Shelf Number: 156850 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Child Protection Service Crossover Youth Juvenile Court Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Offenders Juvenile SentencingYouth justice |