Criminal Justice
A Just Alternative to Sentencing Youth to Life in Prison Without the Possibility of Parole
Jody Kent and Beth Colgan
ACS is pleased to distribute A Just Alternative to Sentencing Youth to Life in Prison Without the Possibility of Parole, an Issue Brief by Jody Kent, Director and National Coordinator of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, and Beth Colgan, Managing Attorney of the Institutions Project at Columbia Legal Services. This Issue Brief is particularly timely in light of the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of juvenile life sentences without the possibility of parole in two cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida. Ms. Kent and Ms. Colgan examine why, in their opinion, such sentencing practices represent deeply flawed public policy. As the authors explain:
"Regardless of whether the Court extends [its precedent acknowledging that juveniles are different from adults] to find the sentencing of youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole unconstitutional in one or both of these cases, advocates for youth have called for reform of extreme sentencing policies, on the basis that they grossly undermine rational, fair, and age-appropriate treatment of youth."
Ms. Kent and Ms. Colgan discuss the well-established principle that youth are different from adults, and explain how this principle is reinforced by adolescent brain development research. The authors address and dismiss arguments that harsh sentencing is necessary to protect public safety, as well as highlight troubling racial disparities and inconsistent sentencing application. In addition, they describe how such sentencing functions to undermine the United States’s moral standing, given that the United States is the only country in the world to sentence offenders under the age of eighteen to life without parole. Finally, the Issue Brief concludes with Ms. Kent and Ms. Colgan proposing an alternative to the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole --- creation of a system allowing periodic review of sentences to determine whether individuals continue to pose a threat to society or may be returned to communities as productive citizens. In the view of the authors, this approach balances the need to hold young offenders accountable, while still recognizing their inherent capacity for change and growth.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Kent Colgan Juvenile Life Issue Brief.pdf | 217.86 KB |
Hire A Lawyer, Escape the Death Penalty?
Scott Phillips
ACS is pleased to distribute an Issue Brief by Scott Phillips, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Denver, entitled “Hire A Lawyer, Escape the Death Penalty?” In this Issue Brief, Professor Phillips describes the results of his study to test the claim made by death penalty opponents that wealthy defendants who hire legal counsel are exempt from capital punishment. His research focuses on Houston, Texas, and surrounding Harris County, which is the county with the largest number of executions in the United States and is the largest jurisdiction that uses court-appointed lawyers to represent defendants who cannot afford an attorney, although the county is currently considering the creation of a public defender. The data for the study include the 504 adult defendants indicted for capital murder in Harris County from 1992 to 1999, and represent all of the relevant cases from this time period. Professor Phillips compares the outcomes in cases where the defendant hired a lawyer with cases where the defendant had a court-appointed lawyer and finds that, “[h]iring counsel for the entire case not only eliminates the chance of death, but also dramatically increases the chance of an acquittal.” He also finds that “[h]iring counsel for a portion of the case substantially reduces the chance of death,” and “hiring counsel did not appear to be the province of the wealthy because virtually all capital defendants seem to be poor.”
Professor Phillips argues that these dramatic findings “are not an indictment of appointed attorneys, but rather an indictment of the structural deficiencies inherent in the appointment method of indigent defense.” He discusses these deficiencies and reform efforts in Texas aimed at addressing them. He believes that the reform efforts have not succeeded, however, and argues that “the solution is to create a public defender office, including a capital defender unit, in Houston that is responsible for all indigent cases. The public defender must be funded at a level proportionate to the DA’s office.” He acknowledges that, “[t]he hybrid plan currently being considered [that would use both a public defender and appointed attorneys] represents genuine progress and is a laudable step in the right direction,” but concludes by asserting that “Houston’s distinction as the capital of capital punishment creates a special obligation to provide the most rigorous system of indigent defense possible. Only a top-notch public defender can meet such a standard.”
This Issue Brief has been updated by the author with additional information since it was originally published on February 23, 2010.
Click Here to Download the Issue Brief
Professor Phillips previously wrote an ACS Issue Brief entitled, “Racial Disparities in Capital Punishment: Blind Justice Requires a Blindfold.” His first issue brief described research he conducted on race and capital punishment in Harris County, and is available here.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Phillips - Hire a Lawyer (updated).pdf | 190.81 KB |
ACS Panel: Reorienting Federal Criminal Justice Policy - An Opportunity for a More Integrative Approach?
On Wednesday, December 9, 2009, ACS hosted an event to discuss the importance of comprehensive criminal justice reform and new solutions that Congress and the federal government should consider in trying to tackle the problems we face. This event featured:
- A keynote address by Senator Jim Webb, discussing the need to address America's broken criminal justice system by looking at every aspect of the system with an eye toward reshaping the process from top to bottom.
- A panel discussion that explored the opportunities for and implications of reorienting criminal justice policies toward a more integrative approach - an approach that addresses the underlying, interrelated social and economic issues that fuel cycles of incarceration to create safe, fair, and equitable communities in which all are able to thrive, particularly those at greatest risk for court involvement. The ideas that were the impetus for the panel discussion come from an article entitled, Integrative Solutions to Interrelated Issues: A Multidisciplinary Look Behind the Cycle of Incarceration, which was recently published in ACS's official journal, The Harvard Law and Policy Review.The panel featured:
- Moderator, Nkechi Taifa, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Society Institute (OSI)
- Catherine Beane, Director, Behind the Cycle, and Principal, Beane Consulting
- Walter M. Beglau, District Attorney, Marion County, Oregon
- The Honorable Robert C. (Bobby) Scott (D-VA), United States House Representative
- Gina E. Wood, Director of Policy and Planning, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
- Featured remarks from Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar, Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy and a member of the White House Domestic Policy Council, who discussed efforts that span the executive branch to address the issues that underlie involvement in the criminal justice system.
Reorienting Federal Criminal Justice Policy: An Opportunity for a More Integrative Approach?
Reorienting Federal Criminal Justice Policy: An Opportunity for a More Integrative Approach?
Incarceration projections, fiscal realities, and political dynamics have converged with a growing body of evidence regarding the diminishing public safety returns of America's incarceration practices to set the stage for a reconfiguration of criminal justice policy. The economic recession and the fiscal implications of America's prioritization of incarceration in its criminal justice policies have exacerbated interrelated social and economic issues in education, housing, child welfare, and related areas, with devastating consequences for state budgets and the millions of men, women, and children living in poverty. The rising costs of incarcerating one in 100 Americans has prompted our national leaders to call for comprehensive criminal justice reform, and to explore alternative approaches for addressing crime while ensuring public safety.
Improving Prison Oversight to Address Sexual Violence in Detention
Melissa Rothstein and Lovisa Stannow
ACS is pleased to distribute Improving Prison Oversight to Address Sexual Violence in Detention, an Issue Brief by Melissa Rothstein, the East Coast Program Director for Just Detention International (JDI), and Lovisa Stannow, JDI's Executive Director. In 2003, Congress focused national attention on the problem of sexual violence in our prisons, jails, and detention facilities when it passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). A commission created under the law just completed a comprehensive, five-year process that resulted in recommended national standards designed to address the problem, and Attorney General Eric Holder has one year to review the recommended standards and adopt final binding national standards. When adopted, the standards will immediately apply to all federal detention facilities, and states will have one year to certify their compliance or risk losing 5% of their federal corrections-related funding. Rothstein and Stannow argue that the national standards "have the potential to dramatically improve the safety of corrections facilities nationwide for officers and inmates alike."
In their Issue Brief, Rothstein and Stannow discuss the urgent need for national standards addressing sexual abuse in detention, in addition to a strong monitoring system to improve safety in detention facilities. The authors detail the problem of sexual violence in detention and its systemic and managerial underpinnings. They then discuss the recommended national standards, and examine the need for improved corrections oversight and the vital role that the national standards can play. Finally, Rothstein and Stannow conclude by urging the Attorney General to ratify the recommended standards, as well as establish a strong, independent mechanism for measuring compliance.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Rothstein Stannow Issue Brief.pdf | 239.64 KB |
.png){kind=icon}
