Impact of Juvenile Facilities Closure on Adult Criminal Court Filings

Governor Brown’s plan to shut down all DJJ facilities has been scratched, due to budgetary difficulties. Nonetheless, it is important to pay attention to two recent reports by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice on juvenile justice realignment.
The first report assesses the potential impact of DJJ institutional closures on adult charges. This, you may recall, was a cause for concern in some quarters. Nonetheless, the report finds that, while “California counties drastically vary in arrest and incarceration policies. . . even radical variations in reliance on State incarceration have no effect on juvenile crime rates or trends.” Here are the main findings:
In 2009, 24 counties employed locally self-reliant juvenile justice practices. Those counties were Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Inyo, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Mendocino, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Trinity, and Tulare.

In 2009, 13 counties employed State-dependent juvenile justice practices that would significantly obstruct juvenile justice reform. Those counties were Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura.

The thirteen State-dependent counties accounted for 37% of juvenile felony arrests but 61% of all direct adult criminal court filings and 46% of all DJF commitments, in 2009.

Kings County is the most State-dependent county, direct filing in adult criminal court 50 times more than Los Angeles, 39 times more than San Diego, and 36 times more than San Francisco in 2009.

Twelve California counties did not utilize the state system during 2009; either for a DJF commitment or an adult criminal court filing despite experiencing juvenile felony arrests during that year (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra, and Trinity).

Despite having the highest juvenile felony arrest rate in the State, San Francisco County utilized direct adult criminal court filing one-eighth as much as the county with the lowest rate of juvenile felony arrests (El Dorado).
It would appear from the report that adult criminal court filings are a matter of organizational and prosecutorial culture, and the policies are not sensitive to the adult/juvenile divide. It is important to say that these findings make sense in the aggregate. I’m sure that, in single cases that raise true dilemmas, juvenile justice practices might be taken into account by individual prosecutors when making the call whether to charge someone as a juvenile or an adult. But the big picture does not seem to support a structural connection between the two.
The second report examined the capacity of county facilities to house juveniles. As the table shows, California counties currently have the space and infrastructure to house all juveniles who are now held in state prisons.
What does all this mean now that the governor has changed his plans? Perhaps it means that law enforcement officials making charging decisions can, and should, be more amenable to the possibility of charging juveniles with misdemeanors rather than felonies when possible. If the change does not occur as a grand top-down policy, it may have to occur as a bottom-up aggregate set of decisionmaking on the part of prosecutors.

Panel on Isolation Units

Almost once a week I receive mail from inmates or family members concerning the solitary confinement conditions at the SHU unit in Pelican Bay. We have previously blogged about the discontents of solitary confinement and behavioral modification here and here. Now, the Center for Constitutional Rights is organizing an upcoming panel about the conditions in isolation units.

Where: The Women’s Building, Audre Lorde Room, 3543 18th Street #8, San Francisco, CA
When: Tuesday, April 5, 6:30pm-8:00pm
Who:
  • Dr. Terry Kupers, M.D.
  • Alexis Agathocleous, Staff Attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights
  • Zahra Baloo, Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-San Francisco Bay Area
  • Keramet Reiter, JD, PhD Candidate Berkeley Law

Regulating Medical Marijuana

Once, in a criminology course, I asked my students whether they thought there would be less criminalizing if we regulated prostitution. At first, they all thought that we would see many less people prosecuted for prostitution-related offenses: No more john schools, no more arrests of prostitutes. Then, we all thought about the need for health codes, zoning, contact with minors, labor and employment issues, and realized that people would still be prosecuted; they’d be prosecuted for technicalities. Max Weber would have a field day.

After the demise of Prop 19, the medical marijuana industry supposedly would continue its business as usual. However, it appears that things have changed. The rate of raids on dispensaries have increased, and, as reported by the Sac Bee, advocates call for state-wide regulation of the industry. The fact that a behavior is “legal” does not mean that it is “unregulated”, and does not avoid the interaction with law enforcement in situations of real or imagined violations.

Currently, under California law, dispensaries providing medical marijuana must operate as nonprofit “collectives” of registered medical marijuana patients who reimburse dispensaries for the costs of providing medicinal pot.

But medical cannabis in California has boomed into an industry generating an estimated $1.3 billion in transactions and paying hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries, rent and overhead costs.

Authorities, looking for illicit profiteering, last year raided scores of dispensaries in San Jose and Chico and prosecuted medical marijuana providers in San Diego County. The district attorney in Los Angeles, Steve Cooley, branded a local boom in medical marijuana outlets as “storefronts illegally pushing pot.”

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said he intends to introduce an “omnibus cannabis bill” to create a state oversight program to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries and all aspects of delivering marijuana to legal medicinal users.

Ammiano said the Legislature needs to clarify the rules due to the wildly divergent approaches towards dispensaries. They are embraced in some California cities and raided in others.

How much of the need for such regulation would go away if we legalized marijuana for everyone? Some of it would. The need to supervise dispensaries for medical needs of patients would disappear. However, there would be other regulatory aspects. Dosage, sources, zoning–all of those would have to be carefully defined. Rather than checking patient ID cards, drivers’ licenses would need to be checked to ensure no sales to minors. Personal growing areas would have to be measured to ensure a differentiation between a personal and a commercial growing operation. In other words, there is no guarantee that the eyes of law enforcement agent would immediately be diverted elsewhere, a-la The Eye of Sauron. More rules might mean more infractions.

What statewide regulation would do, however, is clarify the extent of commercialization we allow the medical marijuana industry. That is not necessarily a bad thing; it would be an opportunity to give some thought to the question why it has been important to keep this industry on a non-profit basis. I’d be curious to hear from our readers on this: How would you envision such statewide regulations?

CCC Talk at UH Mānoa Law School


A wee announcement for our Hawai’i readers: This Tuesday I’ll be giving a talk about humonetarianism (the impact of the financial crisis on criminal justice policies) at the William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. Here’s more info about the event, including a downloadable version of the paper. I’ll be happy to have you in the audience, and meeting our blog readers in person will be a treat.

While the talk will not focus solely on Hawai’i policies, I hope our audience members will have insights and thoughts about how the crisis has impacted Hawai’i. Last year, Kat Brady spoke to the Star Advertiser about the need to bring the out-of-state inmates back home from the mainland. Brady is a true humanitarian – not a humonetarian – but among the many good reasons to bring the inmates home and find solutions for mass incarceration, she mentions the cost issue.

Do Not Cure Overcrowding with More Prison Construction!


(image courtesy CDCR from a report on AB 900 projects)

About a year and a half ago, we reported on a study showing that population reduction orders may have adverse consequences: they lead to greater expenditures and the money comes from the welfare budget. Today we learn, via the Prison Law blog, that prison litigation may have other unsavory consequences.

Here is the abstract of Heather Schonfeld‘s Mass Incarceration and the Paradox of Prison Conditions Litigation:

In this article I examine how prison conditions litigation in the 1970s, as an outgrowth of the civil rights movement, inadvertently contributed to the rise of mass incarceration in the United States. Using Florida as a case study, I detail how prison conditions litigation that aimed to reduce incarceration was translated in the political arena as a court order to build prisons. Drawing on insights from historical institutionalist scholarship, I argue that this paradox can be explained by considering the different historical and political contexts of the initial legal framing and the final compliance with the court order. In addition, I demonstrate how the choices made by policy makers around court compliance created policy feedback effects that further expanded the coercive capacity of the state and transformed political calculations around crime control. The findings suggest how “successful” court challenges for institutional change can have long-term outcomes that are contrary to social justice goals. The paradox of prison litigation is especially compelling because inmates’ lawyers were specifically concerned about racial injustice, yet mass incarceration is arguably the greatest obstacle to racial equality in the twenty-first century.

As our readers will recall, this unhealthy dynamic played out perfectly in the oral arguments of Plata/Coleman. More than ever, and as I explained here and here, I am convinced that the inmate advocates should not have conceded that the three-jduge panel would consider new construction a suitable solution to the overcrowding problem. While her emphasis is on racial justice litigation and its discontents, Schonfeld’s findings also strongly confirm what anyone with common sense and some knowledge of prison history should know by now: If you build it, they will come. Any attempt to solve overcrowding through construction is an expensive short-term solution that will yield more overcrowding in the future. If we’re not humanitarian, let’s at least be humonetarian, and solve our prison crisis with early releases and a parole program that offers real hope and an escape from recidivism and the revolving door.

Smart on Crime Group Release Report to Congress

Today, a diverse coalition of organizations, including the Innocence Project, the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, the Constitution Project, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums, has released a comprehensive report titled Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Administration and Congress.

We will read and assess the recommendations, but for now, here are some tidbits from the press release:

In its review of virtually every major criminal justice issue—from overcriminalization to forensic science—from juvenile justice to the death penalty—and from indigent defense to executive clemency— the report serves as both a source of information and a spur to action for the Administration and Congress.

Just two days before the release of the Smart on Crime report, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) reintroduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act which would “create a blue-ribbon, bipartisan commission of experts charged with undertaking an 18-month top-to-bottom review” of the nation’s criminal justice system and offering concrete recommendations for reform. The establishment of such a commission is among the major recommendations of the report.

Virginia Sloan, President of The Constitution Project, said about Smart on Crime, “The criminal justice system is supposed to be about justice—for victims, for those rightly and wrongly accused and convicted of crimes, and for all of us. But a system that costs too much and makes so many mistakes provides justice for no one. Smart on Crime contains an ever-increasing and bipartisan consensus on how to fix the problems that have for too long plagued the system.”

In addition to its recommendation that a National Criminal Justice Commission be formed, the report—developed and published by the Smart on Crime Coalition, a group of more than 40 bipartisan organizations and individuals—offers nearly 100 detailed policy recommendations across 16 criminal justice areas. While contributors do not necessarily have positions on each issue addressed, there was universal agreement that the current system—with its rampant cost, inefficiency, and injustices—is in urgent need of reform.

“Overcriminalization of federal law threatens every American’s liberty and drains the public coffers with pointless prosecutions and unnecessary incarcerations,” said Norman Reimer, Executive Director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “We urge every elected official to end the madness that has produced over 4,450 federal criminal statutes, and countless tens of thousands more arising from the unchecked power of regulatory authorities.”

A Smart on Crime Web site was also created to provide policy-makers, media and the public with quick and easy access to the report. In addition, visitors to besmartoncrime.org can hear report contributors share their insights on criminal justice system problems and solutions in videotaped interviews.

It is interesting that the report comes out, with references to Jim Webb, just as Webb announced that he will not run for another term.

Judge Fogel Visits San Quentin

Judge Jeremy Fogel, who ordered executions in San Quentin halted five years ago, toured the renovated San Quentin facilities to assess whether executions can proceed. ABC News report:

The L.A. Times adds:

Whether his concerns have been alleviated by rewriting of the legal protocols guiding the execution process and the physical changes made to the prison venue where death sentences are carried out was not immediately apparent.

The judge asked corrections officials questions about lighting, drug handling, conditions for witnesses and for the inmate’s last hours but gave no indication whether the answers allayed his earlier concerns.

Fogel, leading an entourage of lawyers for the state, Morales and other prisoners facing execution if the practice resumes, went room to room in the clinic-like facility, inspecting the hand-lettered drug vials arrayed on two trays in the infusion room, where the execution drugs are to be mixed and delivered via intravenous tubes threaded through the wall of the adjacent death chamber.

Fogel said he hoped to have a decision about whether executions can proceed “as soon as possible” but set out a schedule for further hearings that will run at least through spring. California has 718 prisoners on death row, though only seven who have exhausted all appeals.

Death Investigations: Incompetence, Negligence, Tragic Mistakes

This excellent and disturbing Frontline documentary exposes the deplorable state of death investigations around the United States. Incompetent, inattentive pathologists, whose performance is never scrutinized, work for medical examiner offices whose accuracy and adherence to professional standards is never reviewed or accredited. People with no medical education or skills are employed as medical examiners. While numerous medical examiner offices are portrayed, considerable attention is given to terrible mistakes in Sonoma County and elsewhere in California.

This relates to the focus of this blog in two ways: First, one of the distressing implications of incompetent death investigations is the potential for wrongful convictions. And second, considering the high incidence of inmate deaths, the concern is that deaths resulting from negligence (or worse) of correctional personnel will go undetected.

—-
Props to Crystal Ratliff for the link.