THE CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE The Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ) is dedicated to ending the practice of trying, sentencing, and incarcerating youth under the age of 18 in the adult criminal justice system. The goals of the campaign are: • to raise awareness about the negative impact of prosecuting youth in the adult criminal justice system and of incarcerating young people in adult jails and prisons; • to reduce the number of youth who are tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the adult system; • to decrease the harmful impact of trying youthful offenders in adult court; and • to promote research-based, developmentally appropriate rehabilitative programs and services for youth. THE CONSEQUENCES AREN’T MINOR The Impact of Trying Youth as Adults and Strategies for Reform A CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE REPORT : : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 DEDICATION This book is dedicated to the thousands of young people and their families across the country who have been affected negatively by state laws in the name of public safety. PG. 1 PG. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Note from the Editors 3 How a Youth Ends Up in the Adult Justice System 5 Key Findings 6 The Opportunity for Change 18 Recommendations 20 State Chapters California 23 Connecticut 35 Florida 49 Illinois 63 North Carolina 71 Virginia 85 Wisconsin 95 INTRODUCTION NOTE FROM THE EDITORS “ On the horizon, therefore, are tens of thousands of severely morally impoverished juvenile superpredators.” — John DiIulio, The Coming of the Superpredators, The Weekly Standard (1995) Sometimes all it takes is one case to change the course of public opinion and national policy. The Central Park Jogger case did just that. On April 19, 1989, a 29-year-old investment banker was raped and left unconscious. Five teenagers—who later became known as the “Central Park Five”—confessed to police, were convicted in the rape, and served sentences ranging from 7 to 11 years. The press inflamed public fears, coining new phrases such as the activity “wilding” where “packs of bloodthirsty teens from the tenements, bursting with boredom and rage, roam the streets getting kicks from an evening of ultra-violence.”1 As a result of the Central Park Jogger case, prominent and influential individuals, such as former Princeton professor and Bush Administration appointee, John DiIulio, made doom and gloom predictions about the emergence of a “generational wolfpack” of “fatherless, Godless and jobless” youth. According to these observers, this situation was not confined to New York City but was endemic of a national wave of “superpredators.”2 The superpredator phrase stuck and almost every state passed new laws to make it easier to try and sentence youth in the adult criminal justice system. Punitive policies also were introduced on a national level. Former Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL), then chair of the Crime Subcommittee in the House Judiciary Committee, first introduced the “Violent Youth Predator Act of 1996,” and later reintroduced this legislation as the “Violent Juvenile and Repeat Offender Act of 1997.” At a committee oversight hearing on the legislation he said, “Brace yourself for the coming generation of superpredators.” PG. 3 PG. 4 The roving waves of super-violent youth never materialized. In fact, the juvenile crime rate proceeded to fall for a dozen years to a 30-year low. And the youth in the original Central Park Jogger have since been found innocent. Their convictions were thrown out in 2002, after DNA testing confirmed the guilt of convicted serial rapist and murder, Matias Reyes. This stunning reversal did not garner the same coverage that the original case did, and the myth of excessive youth violence still holds. Despite the data, surveys report that the public believes the juvenile crime rate is increasing and that youth account for a large proportion of overall crime. In reality, national statistics show that more than 80% of all crimes are committed by adults. State laws approved in the hysteria over predicted youth crime remain on the books, but with little proven benefit to public safety. The public was told that these laws would promote public safety, but research produced during the 1990’s and in this decade refutes that idea. In fact, far from reducing crime, trying youth as adults increases the chances that young people will continue to re-offend. Combined with earlier statutes, these laws put thousands of youth at risk of isolation, abuse, and emotional and mental health problems. When tried and incarcerated as adults, young people face harmful and irreversible consequences, often for the kinds of minor mistakes many of us made when we were young. Some researchers estimate that as many as 200,000 youth are prosecuted as adults every year.3 This report shines light on the high costs youth are paying from these mistaken policies by highlighting the following states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Each chapter contains up-to-date and comprehensive information on the processes and policies that send youth to the adult criminal justice system, data on who is affected, and real-life examples of individual youth who have been personally affected by these laws. The profiles show what can happen when public policy can be swayed by a single, now- discredited case and the resulting unfounded hysteria. These stories represent more than single cases; they reflect the pain and harm that comes to the thousands of youth in the adult justice system whose stories haven’t been told. Unfortunately, they are not the exception; they are the rule. It is our hope that at least one of the voices of these youth will inspire state and national policymakers to take action on the recommendations in this report. Sincerely, Liz Ryan, Campaign for Youth Justice Jason Ziedenberg, Justice Policy Institute HOW A YOUTH ENDS UP IN THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM Age of Juvenile These laws determine the age of adulthood for criminal justice purposes. They Court Jurisdiction effectively remove certain age groups from the juvenile court control for all in- fractions, whether violent or non-violent, and place them within the adult court jurisdiction. Thirteen states have defined the age of juvenile court jurisdiction as below the generally accepted age of 18 years old. Transfer and These laws allow young people to be prosecuted in adult courts if they are Waiver Provisions accused of committing certain crimes. A variety of mechanisms exist by which a youth can be transferred to adult court. Most states have transfer provisions, but they vary in how much authority they allow judges and pros- ecutors to exercise. Judicial Waiver This is the most traditional and common transfer and waiver provision. Under judicial waiver laws, the case originates in juvenile court. Under certain circumstances, the juvenile court judge has the authority to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer the case to criminal court. Some states call the process “certification,” “remand,” or “bind over for criminal prosecution.” Others “transfer” or “decline jurisdiction” rather than waiver. At the end of the 2004 legislative session, almost all states had judicial waiver provisions. State statutes vary in how much guidance they provide judges on the criteria used in determining if a youth’s case should be transferred. Prosecutorial Waiver These laws grant prosecutors discretion to file cases against young people in either juvenile or adult court. Such provisions are also known as “concurrent jurisdiction,” “prosecutorial discretion,” or “direct file.” At the end of the 2004 legislative session, 15 states had concurrent jurisdiction provisions. Reverse Waiver This is a mechanism to allow youth whose cases are being prosecuted in adult court to be transferred back down to the juvenile court system under certain circumstances. At the end of the 2004 legislative session, 25 states had reverse waiver provisions. Statutory or These laws exclude certain youth from juvenile court jurisdiction entirely by Legislative Exclusion requiring particular types of cases to originate in criminal rather than juvenile court. At the end of the 2004 legislative session, 29 states had statutory exclusion laws on the books. “Once an Adult, These laws require youth who have been tried as adults to be prosecuted Always an Adult” automatically in adult courts for any subsequent offenses. At the end of the 2004 legislative session, 34 states had such provisions, but most require the youth to have been convicted in the initial criminal prosecution. Blended Sentencing These laws allow juvenile or adult courts to choose between juvenile and adult correctional sanctions in sentencing certain youth. Courts often will combine a juvenile sentence with a suspended adult sentence, which allows the youth to remain in the juvenile justice system as long as he or she is well-behaved. At the end of the 2004 legislative session, 26 states had passed laws that provided for blended sentencing in some cases. Sources: Sickmund, M. (2003). Juveniles in court. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquen- cy Programs. http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/195420/contents.html. Griffin, P. (2005). National overviews. State juvenile justice profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/ PG. 5 PG. 6 KEY FINDINGS National and state research, and the experience of young people, their parents, and their families give us a concrete picture of how the laws governing the trying, sentencing, and incarceration of youth do not promote public safety. The following are more than a dozen key findings from this research. #1 The overwhelming majority of youth who enter the adult court are not there for serious, violent crimes. “I never saw any superpredators in my court. What I saw were 14- and 15-year-olds, scared to death.” #1 The overwhelming majority of youth who enter the adult — Judge David A.