jlim21ahsgov

[jlim21ahsgov]

Blog Post #9 Final Infographic

[jlim21ahsgov]

Civic Action Assessment of Juvenile Justice

I was given the opportunity to attend Town Hall (Online) with Congressman Mark Desaulnier, in response to my issue of Juvenile Justice Reform. The zoom was on the 29th of October, from 3:30 pm to 4:30 pm. He gave us a lecture on his job, his achievements, and the current issues that congress was tackling. He talked a lot about his life and its ups and downs before we were allowed to ask him questions about our issues about what he was doing for/how he was addressing those issues. There he answered questions about police brutality,  LGBTQIA+ issues, the pandemic/schooling concerns, and so much more.  

[jlim21ahsgov]

Legislative and Executive Action

Bill 5053: Justice for Juveniles Act. Introduced November 12, 2019.

Bill originated in the House of Representatives. The bill passed the House on September 21, 2020, and will go to the Senate next for consideration.

It is an attempt to exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by prisoners. The bill would eliminate the administrative exhaustion requirement (which says that a person challenging an agency decision must first pursue the agency's available remedies before seeking judicial review) for incarcerated youth before they may file a lawsuit challenging the conditions of their incarceration.

17 of the 20 sponsors were Democrats (the primary sponsor is a Democrat). However, 3 sponsors are Republicans who also happen to be the original cosponsors of the bill which indicates it is a bipartisan bill. Since it is bipartisan, it strengthens the likelihood of the bill passing.  

House Judiciary- Crime, Terroism and Homeland Security

The administrative exhaustion requirement being applied to youths is inconsistent with today’s scientific understanding of the cognitive development in young people. This requirement is also too high of a burden for youths in custody to meet easily or successfully, which is why I would encourage my representatives to vote yes on this bill.  

The Department of Justice manages the federal response to my civic action issue of juvenile justice reform.

Department of Justice’s Mission Statement: “To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

The secretary of the Department of Justice is headed by the two-time Attorney General, William Barr. Barr received his A.B. in government from Columbia University in 1971 and his M.A. in government and Chinese studies in 1973. From 1973 to 1977, he served in the CIA before receiving his J.D. with highest honors from George Washington University Law School in 1977. Barr is experienced, knowledgeable, and qualified for the job which is why I believe that with the right help and attention, more bills could be made and more awareness about Juvenile Justice could ensue.

They have listed and linked Juvenile Justice programs such as the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ). FACJJ was established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and is supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The committee is made up of representatives from the nation’s state advisory groups and they advise the President, Congress, and the OJJDP Administrator on juvenile justice issues and concerns.

[jlim21ahsgov]

California Proposition Assessment

1.  The proposition for Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute (AKA Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements) is from the 2016 election and is known as Proposition 57.

2.  Proposition 57 allows for the consideration of parole for those convicted of nonviolent felonies, once they complete their given prison term for their primary offense. It gives the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation the ability to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements. It also requires them to implement new parole and sentence credit provisions while also needing to be able to guarantee public safety. It would also give juvenile court judges (not prosecutors) the final decision, whether juveniles age 14 and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults for specified offenses.

3.  Fiscal Impact: Net state savings possibly in the tens of millions of dollars annually, mainly due to reductions in the prison population. Savings would depend on how provisions are implemented so the net county costs would likely be a few million dollars annually.

4.  64.46% voted yes and 35.54% voted no. I am not surprised by this outcome because a "yes" vote would be supporting the increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for those convicted of nonviolent crimes and allowing judges, instead of prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court. Dangerous felons would still stay in jail and evidence-based rehabilitation for juveniles and adults is addressed, and would also save taxpayers millions of dollars which would better the status quo.

5.  There were many PACs registered to support this proposition, including Californians for Public Safety and Rehabilitation, Fund for Policy Reform, Million Voter Project Action Fund, Civic Participation Action Fund, Open Philanthropy Action Fund, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association Issues Committee, and many more. The 5 largest donors were Governor Brown’s Ballot Measure Committee, California Democratic Party, Thomas Steyer, Mark Zuckerberg, and Open Society Policy Center Inc. I was most surprised about Mark Zuckerberg’s contribution because I am pretty sure he stated that he has no party preference but he probably wanted to save his tax money. Other than that I was happy to see that Open Society Policy Center a non-partisan organization and Thomas Steyer a philanthropist and liberal activist support the proposition. These supporters can help voters understand that the intentions of the proposition were “good” because it was not dominated by businesses that would benefit from the proposition and it was also supported by many nonpartisan organizations as well as those known for progressive ideas.

6.  The arguments in favor of Proposition 57:

Reduces wasteful spending of prisons which saves taxpayer dollars

Dangerous offenders will stay locked up.

Those with nonviolent convictions who complete their full prison term will be allowed parole consideration

Authorizes a system of credits that can be earned for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education milestones or taken away for bad behavior.

The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will be required to certify that these policies protect and enhance public safety.

Requires judges (not prosecutors) to decide whether minors should be prosecuted as adults, emphasizing rehabilitation for minors in the juvenile system.

   Arguments against:

It was poorly drafted and would allow rapists, pedophiles, and human traffickers to be released early from prison.

Career criminals could be treated as first offenders.

Victims will be forced to relive their experience more often due to more parole hearings.

The proposition could result in higher crime rates.

If passed, the proposition would place the new privileges for criminals in the California Constitution, making it more difficult for the legislature to change the language if necessary

7.  After much consideration, I decided that I would vote “no” for Proposition 57. Although this would make major changes for criminal and juvenile justice, this proposition is too vague and contains too many loopholes. This proposition should have been revised and improved before being taken into consideration. Prop 57 would also consider the early release of rapists, pedophiles, human traffickers, domestic abusers, etc even though the proposition says that those who are hazards to society will not be let out.  

8.  A fact I found interesting was that California state law fails to clearly define what constitutes a “nonviolent felony,” and it only specifies 23 felonies as violent. This could mean that those convicted for assault with a deadly weapon or domestic violence might be eligible for early parole if the measure passes.

[jlim21ahsgov]

Political Interest Groups & PACs Assessments

PART 1:

1. National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA)

2. The NCJA acts as a liaison between state, local, and tribal governments for criminal justice issues including crime control and prevention issues. Members of the NCJA represent all facets of the criminal and juvenile justice community.

3. 5 important pieces of information that provide a picture of what NCJA advocates for Juvenile Justice:

They support the policy of Juvenile Justice and the Prevention of Juvenile Crime and Delinquency. It takes into account the developmental differences between children and adults that must be taken into account by the justice system to minimize the prosecution of juveniles and the incarceration of juveniles in adult facilities. It calls for juvenile crime prevention and control strategies that must be based on a comprehensive and strategic approach, and include behavioral health awareness (which includes the continuance of research, science, and progressions in public education about reducing risk factors and enhancing protective factors to establish a system of graduated sanctions and effective treatment). In order to succeed in reducing juvenile crime and the transition to adult criminal careers, adequate resources must be made available for evidence-based prevention, intervention, and treatment services to be readily accessible to all juveniles.

They want to create strong community-police relations because they believe developing and maintaining trust through “on-going partnerships, transparency, and open and regular communications” is critical. They believe that mutual trust and respect should help support the community’s confidence in just enforcement of laws within the unique segments of their communities and improves public safety for all.

For any type of “treatment” to be effective, there needs to be a management of incarcerated populations. They advocate for states and local governments to seek to identify and implement policies to ensure that those presenting the highest risk are in custody and that classification/treatment is evidence-based. These evidence-based policies provide a promising approach to the challenges of the incacerated and provide targeted and proven sanctions for offenders based on their risk to the community. Sentencing policies that are evidence-based also provide correctional leaders and administrators with specific tools to manage their facilities safely.

They believe that American principles of equal protection and equal justice demand recognition that racial disparities exist throughout the criminal justice system. They want criminal justice professionals to support research and funding to address factors that contribute to these disparities and develop effective policies and practices to counter them. They however believe, it is important to distinguish the difference between the consequences of actions by the criminal justice system and those coming from factors outside the system. They feel that Criminal justice professionals should target specifically those factors arising within the criminal justice system, and the NCJA wants lawmakers to support these efforts through funding and legislation that addresses and corrects these disparities.

They recognize the lack of appropriate and necessary treatment for those who suffer from mental illness and/or substance abuse are at a higher risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system (as a victim or offender). Despite the lack of resources, appropriately trained staff, legal restraints, etc., the NCJA support the use of data from across criminal justice and public health agencies to identify those individuals with the highest number of contacts with police, emergency medical services, emergency departments, etc. and help them get help within their community. Early identification and treatment, with coordinated statewide law enforcement crisis intervention team training, provision of housing, adequate discharge medication amounts, accessible and affordable treatment in jails/prisons/community are all the advantages of this. They also believe that criminal justice professionals must partner with policymakers, law enforcement, mental health providers, community groups, consumer groups, and both public and private sector professionals to educate and to develop solutions to this expanding health and public safety issue.

4. The NCJA endorsed The REAL Act (S. 1074) a bill that restores Pell Grant eligibility for those incarcerated in a federal or state penal institution and for sex offenders subject to civil commitment (involuntary hospitalization) following incarceration. Its sponsor was Senator Brian Schatz and he introduced the bill on April 9th, 2019.  

5. The NCJA is based in Washington D.C. Due to the current pandemic, there are no physical meetings, instead, there are virtual meetings. Their 2020 Virtual Forum on Criminal Justice will be held on December 9-10, 2020. This online conference will highlight programs, research, and policies that will help justice practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers move the criminal justice system forward.

6. There are currently no volunteering opportunities, however, if one would like to keep learning during this time, the NCJA hosts virtual seminars. They focus on innovative and data-driven programs/practices to keep people ahead of the learning curve. These webinars are also recorded, transcribed, and uploaded for everyone to view (the slideshows that were used are also downloadable).

7. An interesting aspect of the NCJA site is that some of the information including funding solicitations and spendings are only viewable by members of the NCJA.

PART 2:

1. American Bridge 21st Century (AB PAC)

2. AB PAC is associated with Media Matters for America which is an opposition research hub for the Democratic Party. They support the Democratic Party, who has plans for juvenile justice reform, unlike the Republican Party. There were no super PACs specifically for juvenile justice reform.

3. In 2020, AB PAC has raised $73,320,492 in total and they have spent $49,413,104 on independent expenditures.

4. $49,413,104 of AB PAC’s budget is spent against the Republican Party and $0 for the Democratic Party. This surprised me because I expected them to donate some of the money to the Democratic Party but since they conduct opposition research to aid Democratic candidates and are associated with a nonprofit research organization that scrutinizes right-leaning media outlets, it does make more sense now.

5. Donors to the AB PAC:

American Bridge 21st Century Foundation

Sixteen Thirty Fund (Left-of-center lobbying + advocacy organization)

Reid Hoffman (Entrepreneur/Investor)

Stephen Mandel (Hedge fund manager/Investor)

Phillip Ragon (Entrepreneur/CEO of InterSystems)

And many many more

This reflects the interest of the group because the AB PAC focuses on opposing the Republican Party, and those who oppose Trump have mostly donated to the PAC.

[jlim21ahsgov]

Election 2020 Presidential Candidates Assessment

Howie Hawkins (Green):

He doesn’t directly mention juvenile justice reform, however, things that encompass it are mentioned, such as ending mass incarceration, treating drug abuse as a health problem not a criminal problem, decriminalizing personal possession of hard drugs, and giving those in prison drug treatment on demand. I agree with Hawkins except for decriminalizing personal possession of hard drugs because I believe that normalizing something so harmful to children and adults alike is not a smart decision. Hawkins’s stance and the Green party platform are similar but the party platform addresses more issues and clearly outlines the solutions, however, the candidate stance only lists the overviewing issues he would like to fix.

Donald Trump (Republican):

Trump’s candidate stance section doesn’t mention justice reform of any sort, instead, the candidate stance is a mere list of achievements. His achievements are tied with supporting the police, appointing many judges, and “confronting organized crime”. I find it hard to agree or disagree with his position because it is just a list of achievements, but those achievements are not liberal reforms and perpetuate that America is great the way it is, so I will have to disagree with him. The republican party platform was also very vague on the topic of juvenile justice and also criminal justice in general but Trumps list of achievements seems to support his party platform.  

Gloria La Riva (Peace & Freedom):

Juvenile justice is again not mentioned however, there are topics that encompass juvenile justice that are mentioned, such as ending mass incarceration of the oppressed/working-class people and ending racist policing. I agree with her position because she recognizes that institutional racism exists and is an issue that the US needs to fix. Her campaign position is a brief overview of what her party platform mentions. The Peace and Freedom party platform addresses more issues and in greater detail.

Roque Guerra (American Independent):

No mention of juvenile justice reform or criminal justice reform in the candidate stance and no mention those reforms in the platform of the American Independent Party. I can neither agree or disagree because nothing is addressed.   

Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian):

Juvenile justice reform is not mentioned but Jorgensen’s criminal justice reform has many overlaps, such as decriminalizing drugs so that anyone convicted at the federal level of victimless crimes will be pardoned and the medical community will be allowed to deal with substance abuse issues “in a way that salvages lives, instead of throwing them away”. She also aims to defund federal involvement in policing, end no-knock raids, and end qualified immunity so that legal action can be taken against police brutality. I agree with Jorgensen’s position because they all affect the arresting, trialing, sentencing and imprisonment of juveniles. If these laws come into action so many children will have their cases checked, and given medical treatment and even be released. The platform of the Libertarian party goes further into depth of the issues they would like to change, they also don’t specifically mention juvenile justice reform, however, their positions have many overlaps with how juveniles are charged and what they are convicted with.

Joseph Biden (Democratic):

Biden’s stance on criminal justice reform has many overlaps with juvenile justice reform, however, unlike the other candidates, not only does he mention juvenile incarceration statistics in the criminal justice reform section, he also has a whole section dedicated to juvenile justice reform. First he wants to invest 1 billion dollars per year in juvenile justice reform to provide children with legal representation and help them seal and expunge records. In exchange for taking these funds, states need to fulfill requirements prohibiting children from being incarcerated in facilities where they will interact with incarcerated adults and will need to address the disproportionate representation of children of color in the juvenile justice system. He also wants to incentivise states to stop incarcerating children and instead look to alternative methods such as mentorship, counseling, and jobs. This doesn’t mean ankle bracelets, it means in-person support for the kids. Biden will create a new grant program to encourage states to place non-violent youth in community-based alternatives to prison, and repurpose empty prisons for the community’s benefit so they cannot be used in the future for detention. He also wants to expand funding for after-school programs, community centers, and summer jobs to keep young people active, busy, learning, and having fun. Many children end up incarcerated due to truancy, alcohol use, and curfew violations so Biden wants to eliminate detention as a punishment for status offenses, and instead make sure these young people engage in community service, workforce programs, or mentorship and therapy as needed. He wants to also provide those with juvenile records a true second chance by protecting their records and will also restore the Obama-Biden Administration Guidance and double the number of mental health professionals at schools. I agree with all his solutions. It seems like he has listened to those advocating for juvenile justice reform and has ideas to advance the basic reform that they have been protesting for. Both the platform of the Democratic party and Biden’s stance support each other and more than adequately address this issue compared to the other political parties.

[jlim21ahsgov]

Political Party Action

Republican: Youth incarceration reform is not mentioned, however, the criminal justice system is mentioned. They mention diversion of first-time, nonviolent offenders to community sentencing, different types of courts, faith-based institutions for rehabilitation, and emphasized putting the offender on the right path. I agree with most of their ideas however I do not think religion should be brought into criminal justice reform. I am also curious about how they are going to implement these changes because they do not give an in-depth explanation, they just list off ideas. They also believe that judicial discretion has made serious mistakes concerning “dangerous criminals” and want mandatory minimum sentencing to “[keep] them off the streets”. Mistakes being made by the Judiciary committee are inevitable however, the republicans don’t mention specific types of mistakes they disapprove of and I hope they aren’t being racist/prejudicial when they mention “dangerous criminals” and “keeping them off the streets”. The Republicans encourage states to offer opportunities for literacy and vocational education to prepare prisoners for release to the community. I agree with some of their positions however, they are offering little to no reform.

Democrat: The Democrats want to end mass incarceration which is an issue concerning Juvenile Justice. They also believe that it is unjustifiable to punish children and teenagers as harshly as adults and therefore should not be sentenced to life without parole. They will encourage states to stop the incarnation of kids, and create community-based alternatives to prison and youth detention centers. They also want to invest in school programs, community centers and summer jobs to provide opportunities to at-risk kids. They believe in a true second chance which includes “sealing and expunging juvenile records”. I agree with everything they have addressed. It is not only important for youth incarceration reform but to also create solutions to minimize juvenile crime.  

Libertarian: Libertarians favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions. They support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal/the wrongdoer and say that the constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. They believe that juries not only judge facts but also the justice of the law and oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in criminal prosecutions (so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains). I agree with their beliefs however they give too much free reign to “the people” which in many cases can backfire against justice. They don’t specifically mention juvenile justice reform, however, their positions have many overlaps with how/what juveniles are charged and convicted with. They also mention overcharging which is common in youth cases in adult courts, more specifically with POC.

Green: The Green Party has created in-depth lists that directly communicate their position. They want alternatives to incarceration, changes to prison conditions/treatment/parolees and want criminal justice reform. They view prison as a last resort and nonviolent cases should be handled by alternative, community-based programs including work-furlough, community service, rehabilitation programs, etc. They want to treat substance abuse as a medical problem and not a criminal problem. They want to release criminals with psychological issues to secure mental health treatment centers, and never house juvenile offenders with adults. Violent and non-violent juvenile offenders would be housed separately. They want to continue the education of juveniles while in custody and substantially decrease the number of juveniles assigned to each judge and caseworker to oversee each juvenile's placement and progress in the juvenile justice system. They believe in human and sanitary conditions for those who are incarcerated, they want to conduct racial and ethnic disparity impact studies, abolish mandatory sentencing, incorporate mental health and community service in bail agreements, etc. I agree with their position, they provide a clear outline of their beliefs with numerous solutions on their website and address numerous issues with the criminal justice system.     

Peace and Freedom: They believe that “inadequate and unequal funding of schools perpetuates racism, crime, and inequality” and they propose many changes to the education system to try counter this. They don’t mention specific juvenile justice changes however their views about criminal justice seem to overlap, such as the decriminalization of victimless activities, abolishing torture in prisons (uphold prisoner rights). I agree with their views as they make sense and are straight forward.

REFLECTION: I identify the most with the Green Party which is surprising because I started the research thinking I would agree with the Democratic Party the most. I also really appreciated the format of how they relayed their information. I will not vote for their presidential candidate because I do not want a split vote to occur or for to Trump become president again. If there was an actual chance for the Green Party to win, I would vote for them but the current political situation suggests otherwise.    

[jlim21ahsgov]

Media Assessment of Juvenile Justice

1. Liberal-leaning source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/29/girls-us-juvenile-detention-family-violence-sexual-abuse  

Conservative bias: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/justice-for-juniors

Objective source: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/778537103/juvenile-justice-groups-say-felony-murder-charges-harm-children-young-adults

2. SACAPS (all three): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZnzezGt1YqkAOdt28mWIoi6cyp8g56Pcw1Ki1kreLZw/edit?usp=sharing

3. What are the similarities and differences between these three accounts of your issue? 

They all agree that there are issues with the Juvenile Justice system and they all address the issue well. One specifically looks at one gender, the other looks at laws that may be changed and warns lawmakers to think wisely about crime, and another looks at a specific law that is used against children/young adults.

4. Which source do you identify with most and why?

Each source makes a valid claim, but I identify with the objective source the most, because it focuses on one law (felony murder law) and addresses it in a way that exhibits past cases and ends with a moral claim.

[jlim21ahsgov]

CONCEPTUALIZING THE ISSUE & ASSESSING TYPES OF ACTION

What civic action issue did you choose and why? I chose Juvenile Justice (more specifically Youth Incarceration Reform) as my civic action issue because I believe that throwing children in jail for small crimes is ethically wrong. No child should be placed into an environment that may cause physical or mental health issues. Instead, they can be redirected through education, psychological help, and support.      

Describe the issue in your own words and how it relates to government. Too many children are being locked up for nonviolent/petty crimes, and the system believes that going to jail will more or less solve their issues. The government should look at the children as individual lives rather than as a societal problem. Each crime is different, and each child deserves proper help. The governement should make laws making it illegal for children to be put in adult jails, and also increase the budget for juvenile education/psychological help, and close down the different types of facilities that are prisons in disguise. Many of the incarcerated are children living in poverty or facing parental neglect. If the government funded schools like they funded their military, it would cut down crime rates, increase opportunities and help the nation address its racial disparities. 

What type of action do you think needs to be taken to address this issue? Anything to raise awareness about this issue should be done, such as signing petitions, holding protests and writing letters to government officials etc. Juvenile Justice should be addressed in local, state and federal governments.