SANTA FE, N.M. -- A New Mexico legislator is optimistic a bill will pass in the 2022 session to prohibit life sentences for juveniles convicted of crimes.
This year, a bill to end life sentences and mandated earlier probation eligibility for juveniles easily passed in the Senate, but died without a vote in the House.
Sen. Bill O'Neill, D-Albuquerque, a juvenile justice advocate, thinks teens who have committed crimes should get a parole hearing if they show signs of remorse or redemption.
"If you're a juvenile, you are a child, and you should not be sentenced to life without parole," O'Neill asserted. "A person should at least be eligible, if they've worked on their stuff, and they committed a crime at age 16."
O'Neill previously sponsored a bill approved by the governor, which prohibits private employers from inquiring about someone's criminal history on an initial job application.
About 75 New Mexicans are currently serving sentences longer than 15 years for crimes they committed before they were 18, according to the New Mexico Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Youth.
O'Neill admits it is difficult to hear the stories of victims of crimes committed by young people, but he noted the behavior often can be explained.
"The perpetrator is oftentimes from a horrific upbringing; poverty, drug abuse, sexual abuse, etc.," O'Neill noted. "That behavior doesn't come out of left field."
The group "Leaders Organizing 2 Unite and Decriminalize" or LOUD said to create a more fair and equitable juvenile justice system, policymakers need to do more to educate themselves about the experiences of young people who've been incarcerated.
Disclosure: Annie E Casey Foundation contributes to our fund for reporting on Children's Issues, Criminal Justice, Early Childhood Education, Education, Juvenile Justice, and Welfare Reform. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Michigan recently implemented a significant juvenile justice reform package following recommendations from a task force made up of prosecutors, sheriffs, judges and child advocates.
The reforms expand diversion eligibility, allocate state funds for programs, limit diversion periods to three months, and eliminate fines and fees.
Jason Smith, executive director of the Michigan Center for Youth Justice, emphasized the shift toward rehabilitation, community-based alternatives, standardized policies, risk assessments and the removal of fines and fees in the system. He said the new system is much more comprehensive.
"If you don't serve a 10-year-old in the juvenile-justice system, which we believe you shouldn't, what do you do with them?" Smith asked. "If they need services, what happens? What we will see over the next couple of years with the expansion of diversion and community-based options will answer those questions."
The major reform involved changing the child care fund reimbursement model to incentivize local jurisdictions to invest more in community-based services.
Richard A. Mendel, senior research fellow for youth justice at The Sentencing Project and author of a report on the topic, said not only does the Michigan package eliminate most fees and minimize costs which would have previously gone to youths or their parents and the counties serving them, but overall diversion programs save money.
"Diversion tends to be cheaper," Mendel pointed out. "It's not a new cost, it's a net savings, even in the short term. And it's especially in this savings financially in the long term because these young people are much less likely to come back."
Smith added the state can serve 10 kids with high-quality services in the community for the price of one leaving residential placement.
get more stories like this via email
Online conferencing was a lifeline for school lessons and business meetings during the pandemic. However, there is concern about the effects of virtual court hearings on Illinois' juvenile offenders.
The "Justice For Children Policy Brief" said minors reported feeling frustrated and anxious during their hearings because they could not understand court procedures. They also said there was a lack of privacy when speaking with their attorneys.
Angie Vigil, a Miami-based attorney specializing in children's rights, opposes digital proceedings for any substantive hearings for children.
"Judges are people and decision-makers are people and when you're in the presence of other people, you make a humanity-based decision," Vigil argued. "When you're looking at a screen you might not make as much of a humanity-based decision."
In 2022, the Illinois House of Representatives passed House Resolution 616, urging the Illinois Supreme Court to require courts to responsibly transition juvenile delinquency proceedings back to in-person hearings, with priority given to those hearings where the interests of liberty are at stake.
Supporters of virtual hearings pointed to no commute time, traffic jams, or courthouse parking fees as reasons to keep them. Parents who rely on public transportation or worry about missing work can just sign on to attend their child's case. Vigil noted a family law attorney often juggles many foster care, child welfare, and juvenile offender cases, and said virtual hearings can ease their workload.
"They are spending less time sitting in court waiting for their cases to be called and more time out in the community meeting the needs of kids," Vigil contended. "It sounds like I'm saying efficiency, but I'm actually talking about more work done for all of the children."
Vigil called the current status of digital hearings a mixed bag. Some courts have returned to in-person proceedings, others use technology for some, but not all, cases. Still other courtrooms use virtual meetings if all involved parties agree. According to the policy brief report, digital hearings will continue to thrive because of funding constraints.
Disclosure: The Juvenile Justice Initiative contributes to our fund for reporting on Children's Issues, Civic Engagement, Criminal Justice, and Juvenile Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
There is growing concern over what happens to young offenders in Illinois as they await their first court hearing.
A report by European juvenile-justice groups suggests many children worldwide are kept in solitary confinement, and argued the arrangement has the potential for long-term harm. It defined solitary confinement as physical and social isolation more than 22 hours a day, and said detainment should be a last resort and for as short a time as possible.
Elizabeth Clarke, founder of the Evanston-based Juvenile Justice Initiative, said children as young as 10 are regularly locked up and left alone.
"Shockingly, Illinois has no minimum age for prosecution of children in our juvenile court," Clarke pointed out. "Often, they're held in their cell because there simply isn't adequate programming. There's nothing to do with them, and it's very troubling."
Clarke noted there is reason to believe the situation will improve. Last year, the Illinois Legislature passed House Bill 3140, which prohibits the use of room confinement as juvenile punishment unless the youth poses an immediate and serious risk of self-harm or harm to others. It took effect Jan. 1, and Clarke acknowledged it will take time to build up resources under the new law.
An Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice report said the state has 16 detention centers housing an average of 160 youths. A judge closed a Franklin County center last month, citing excessive use of solitary confinement.
Another bill would raise the age to imprison kids for felony convictions. Clarke called it a start, and it is supported by juvenile rights advocates and the Illinois Probation and Court Services Association.
"We do not believe young children ever belong in detention. It's not an appropriate place for them," Clarke asserted. "We want to see this House Bill 2347 pass."
The bill was filed one year ago this week. It said the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission should review and make recommendations to the General Assembly on raising the minimum detention age to 14.
Disclosure: The Juvenile Justice Initiative contributes to our fund for reporting on Children's Issues, Civic Engagement, Criminal Justice, and Juvenile Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email