Efren's Letter to Michigan House Judiciary Committee About House Bills 4402-4405

"In The Spirit of Youth and the City Streets, Jane Addams, the Nobel Prize winning social worker and crusader for the juvenile court, emphasized that youth above all is about possibility and that 'we may either smother the divine fire of youth or we may feed it.' We reject life without the possibility of parole sentences because they smother the divine fire of youth. They are an expression of despair that has no place in any system that aims to take seriously youth as a mitigating factor." —David S. Tanenhaus, Steven A. Drizin, "Owing to the Extreme Youth of the Accused": The Changing Legal Response to Juvenile Homicide, 92 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 641 (2002)

December 25, 2007


The Honorable Paul Condino
State Representative
State Capitol
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Dear Representative Condino and Other Distinguished Members of the Michigan Legislature:

I write to express that I echo the call of the proponents to end the imposition of life without parole sentences on juveniles in the State of Michigan. Their opposition to this human rights violation is commensurate with 192 other nations of conscience in the civilized world. I support their appeal to this honorable legislative body for the reasons they have raised and I include additional reasons below.

For nearly 19 years I have been imprisoned for a crime I did not commit. I was convicted in 1989 of one count of murder and one count of armed robbery. I was subsequently sentenced to two terms of life without parole for the murder charge and one parolable life sentence for the armed robbery. My guidelines for the armed robbery charge was 3 to 8 years.

I was 15-years-old at the time of my arrest. Previous to this arrest I had no criminal history of any kind in adult or juvenile court and was a high school honor student. I lived in St. Joseph, Michigan in a good community, enjoyed the strong support of family, and was involved in various extracurricular activities.

I have maintained my innocence for the crime since the day of my arrest. My innocence, however, is not the subject of this letter. I did not compose this letter to re-try my case in the court of public opinion, rather I want to bring to your attention a broader issue that is adversely affecting our youth and threatening their future.

I was the first juvenile in Berrien County to be tried and sentenced under the October 1988 law which authorized prosecutors to automatically transfer juveniles to adult court and try them as adults. My refusal to admit guilt to a crime I did not commit resulted in me receiving the aforementioned sentences amid a barrage of print, radio and television media publicity. The sentences I received have been cited in various reports as one of the most egregious cases of injustice against a juvenile.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is comprised of 35,000 premier psychiatrists from across the nation. In a position paper released in 2005 titled "Adjudication of Youths as Adults in the Criminal Justice System," the APA called for an end to the deplorable practice of transferring juveniles to adult court for a number of reasons, one which precluded the transfer of first-time juvenile offenders to adult court.

The APA is a highly respected body of medical specialists who establish and maintain guiding principles for the nation's field of psychiatry. (Please see http://psych.org/about_apa for more information about the APA). Their recommendations have strongly influenced the criminal justice system and legislative bodies across the country.

In recent years a large corpus of research has emerged reflecting that the teenage brain is not fully developed. The brain is actually undergoing a pruning process during the adolescent years in the executive area of the brain that controls decision-making and planning, among other critical things.

Science has conclusively proven that teenage brains are incomplete and do not fully develop until well into a person's 20s. Thus, adolescent brains are incomplete, rendering adolescents incomplete people with limited cognitive abilities by scientific and medical standards.

If an adult functions with the mentality of a person 17-years-old or younger, that person is deemed mentally unfit to stand trial in most cases. But when a person 17-years-old or younger commits a crime, courts across the state are determining that person has been transformed into an adult. There is something gravely wrong with this faulty logic.

The APA are medical professionals who have reviewed the research which has conclusively established teenage brains are not fully formed, they are undergoing significant changes during that time, and no doctor can predict future dangerousness, or amenability to treatment, of a person with a brain not fully formed.

Adolescents are not the same people in days, weeks, months, and especially years after their crimes were committed. There is no proven nexus between extinguishing the light of hope in adolescents committed to prison and the prevention of crime. Adolescents do not even have the capacity to comprehend crime deterrence and formulate long-term planning. Their sense of time alone is not within the realm of normal functioning adults.

Courts and legislatures have respected the opinions of the APA when creating and imposing laws. Psychiatrists evaluated each juvenile sentenced to life without parole prior to sentencing. I urge this honorable legislative body to adopt the current position of the APA about the transfer of juveniles to adults court based on their years of research, and join the rest of the world as they continue to embrace evolving standards of decency in civilized societies.

Implicit in the APA's position opposing the transfer of first-time offenders to adult court is desisting the practice of imposing life sentences without the possibility of parole as well; a veritable death sentence in this state. Without the transfer of juveniles to adult courts in this state, there can be no imposition of life without parole sentences on juveniles.

Michigan was the first state to abolish the imposition of the death penalty in the western hemisphere. The United States now stands alone as the only nation in the western hemisphere to impose life sentences without parole on juveniles. Let us come together to abandon another one of the world's relics of the ancient past by desisting the draconian practice of imposing life without parole sentences on juveniles as well.

We are a nation "under God" and in God, we do indeed trust. These words are prominently displayed in our capitol building, legislative chambers, and courtrooms. The protection of our children and adoption of sound public policy which focuses on the rehabilitation of children is commensurate with our belief in God. Abandoning the concepts of redemption and rehabilitation contravene our belief in God and having God as the cornerstone of our decision-making.

We can utilize this discussion as an opportunity to restore God in His rightful place in the decision making process that affects the trajectory young people’s lives may take. To not infuse this dialogue with the spirit of righteousness is tantamount to removing God from the equation all together.

It is my fervent prayer that this honorable legislature abolish the imposition of life without parole on juveniles and restore dignity to the way juveniles are treated by the criminal justice system. In so doing we can rescue a generation of youth and help realign the moral compass that has allowed us to demonize them and treat them as pariahs.

Sincerely,

Efren Paredes, Jr.

____________________

* A copy of Efren's actual letter and supporting attachments which were included are available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1406740/Letter-to-Paul-Condino-and-House-Judiciary-Committee-Members-from-Efren-Paredes-Jr

Prosecuting Kids as Adults: Are Laws Too Tough?

States Rethinking, Retooling Juvenile Sentencing Laws After New Research

By Sharon Cohen
Associated Press
Saturday, December 1, 2007

A generation after America decided to get tough on kids who commit crimes — sometimes locking them up for life — the tide may be turning.

States are rethinking and, in some cases, retooling juvenile sentencing laws. They’re responding to new research on the adolescent brain, and studies that indicate teens sent to adult court end up worse off than those who are not: They get in trouble more often, they do it faster and the offenses are more serious.

It’s really the trifecta of bad criminal justice policy,” says Shay Bilchik, a former Florida prosecutor who heads the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University. “People didn’t know that at the time the changes were made. Now we do, and we have to learn from it.”

Juvenile crime is down, in contrast to the turbulent 1990s when politicians vied to pass laws to get violent kids off the streets. Now, in calmer times, some champion community programs for young offenders to replace punitive measures they say went too far.

“The net was thrown too broadly,” says Howard Snyder, director of systems research at the National Center for Juvenile Justice. “When you make these general laws ... a lot of people believe they made it too easy for kids to go into the adult system and it’s not a good place to be.”

Some states are reconsidering life without parole for teens. Some are focusing on raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction, while others are exploring ways to offer kids a second chance, once they’re locked up — or even before.

“There has been a huge sea change ... it’s across the country,” says Laurie Garduque, a program director at the MacArthur Foundation, which is heavily involved in juvenile justice reform.

Prosecutor: Laws are appropriate

Not everyone, though, believes there’s reason to roll back harsher penalties adopted in the 1990s.

“The laws that were changed were appropriate and necessary,” says Minnesota prosecutor James Backstrom. “We need to focus on the protecting the public — that’s No. 1. Then we can address the needs of the juvenile offenders.”

Each year about 200,000 defendants under 18 are sent directly or transferred to the adult system, known as criminal court, according to rough estimates.

Most end up there because of state laws that automatically define them as adults, due to their age or offense. Their ranks rose in the 1990s as juvenile crime soared and 48 states made it easier to transfer kids into criminal court, according to the juvenile justice center.

These changes gave prosecutors greater latitude (they could transfer kids without a judge’s permission), lowered the age or expanded the crimes that would make it mandatory for a case to be tried there.

Some states also adopted blended sentences in which two sanctions can be imposed simultaneously; if the teen follows the terms of the juvenile sentence, the adult sentence is revoked.

Laws toughened after wave of violence

The changes were ushered in to curb the explosion in violence — the teen murder arrest rate doubled from 1987 to 1993 — and to address mounting frustrations with the juvenile justice system.

A series of horrific crimes by kids rattled the nation: A sixth-grader shot and killed a stranger. A 12-year-old stomped and beat a younger playmate. Two grade-schoolers dropped a 5-year-old 14 stories to his death.

Some academics warned that a new generation of “superpredators” would soon be committing mayhem.

It never happened. Drug trafficking declined. An improved economy produced more jobs. And the rate of juvenile violent crime arrests plummeted 46 percent from 1994 to 2005, according to federal figures.

“When crime goes down, people have an opportunity to be more reflective than crisis-oriented and ask, ‘Was this policy a good policy?”’ Bilchik says.

The MacArthur Foundation said in a report to be released this month that about half the states are involved in juvenile justice reform.

And a national poll, commissioned by MacArthur and the Center for Children’s Law and Policy and set for release at the same time, also found widespread public support for rehabilitating teens rather than locking them up.

Changes in laws

Some states have already begun to make changes.

* In Colorado, Gov. Bill Ritter recently formed a juvenile clemency board to hear cases of kids convicted as adults. The head of the panel says it’s an acknowledgment that teens are different from adults — a point made in the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that outlawed the death penalty for crimes committed as juveniles. In 2006, the state replaced the juvenile life-without-parole sentence with the possibility of parole after 40 years.
* In California and Michigan, juvenile life without parole also is getting another look.
* In Connecticut, lawmakers recently raised the age of juveniles to 18 for most cases; the changes will be phased in by 2010. Prosecutors can still transfer felonies to adult court.
* In Illinois, a proposal to move 17-year-olds charged with misdemeanors to juvenile court passed in the state Senate and is pending in the House.
* In Wyoming, talks are under way to shed a system that routinely charges and jails juveniles as adults even for minor offenses such as underage drinking.

Not all states are easing up.

Last summer, Rhode Island passed a law to send 17-year-old offenders to adult prisons in what was intended as a cost-cutting move. The measure, however, was quickly repealed after critics pointed out the plan probably would be more expensive.

One teen's situation

Many say the two systems are dramatically different: Juvenile justice emphasizes rehabilitation, adult courts focus on punishment.

Reginald Dwayne Betts, just 16 when he was charged with carjacking in Virginia, was locked up more than eight years, mostly in adult prisons.

“Of course it makes a difference if you’re 15, 16 or 17,” he says. “You’re not prepared to deal with it physically or emotionally. You’re trying to deal with being away from home. You’re trying to deal with the stress that comes with being in prison.”

Violence was a constant. “I got used to stuff most people I see today would never have to get used to — like somebody getting their head split open,” Betts says.

Betts had problems at first but gradually retreated into books, taught himself Spanish, wrote and published poetry.

When he was released two years ago at age 24, he won a college scholarship. Now engaged and planning to write a book, he knows he’s an exception: “People don’t come out of prison and make good,” he says.

Judge deals with kids as kids

In New York, Judge Michael Corriero is aware of those odds.

He presides over a special court in the adult system — it’s called the Manhattan Youth Part and is responsible for resolving the cases of 13- to 15-year-olds accused of serious crimes.

Corriero tries to steer as many kids as possible away from criminal court, a philosophy detailed in his book, “Judging Children as Children.”

“You take a 14-year-old and give him an adult sentence ... you’re taking him out of the community at his most vulnerable time,” he says. “If you put them in an institution, what is that kid going to look like in 10 years?”

Though juvenile crime tends to evoke images of gangs and murder, violent teens are the exception.

Studies show they account for about 5 percent of all juvenile arrests. Drugs, burglary, theft and other property crimes are among the more common reasons teens are prosecuted in adult courts.

Most of these kids, though, don’t end up in adult prison, according to the Campaign for Youth Justice.

Critic: Adult prison system damaging for kids

But crossing into the adult world is damaging in itself, argues Liz Ryan, head of the group. About 7,500 juveniles are held in adult jails on any given day, she says, and that number probably reaches tens of thousands a year because of turnover.

Being in an adult jail, Ryan says, increases a kid’s risk of sexual abuse and assault. Educational opportunities are limited. And for those convicted of serious crimes, the damage can be irreparable.

“A lot of people say, ’So what? They get a slap on the wrist,”’ Ryan says. “Well, there is a consequence. ... You have a felony record that follows you the rest of your life.”

Mom worries about son

Sheila Montgomery worries about her son, Zack. He recently was released after serving 27 months for being an accomplice in the robbery of an Oregon convenience store. He had originally received a 7½-year term after falsely confessing to being the robber; he was re-sentenced after evidence revealed he wasn’t.

Montgomery says her son, now 17, will “forever be a felon. He can’t put the past behind him. It was hard for him to find work. A lot of people didn’t want to see him.”

Montgomery says she has no problem with “a little bit of jail time” for her son but believes probation and counseling would have served him better.

But prosecutors say some kids are just too dangerous to be prosecuted as juveniles and then be released by age 21.

If a criminal is likely to be free in a few years and do more harm, “then I come down on the side of risking the damage that is done by sending someone to prison,” says Gary Walker, a Michigan prosecutor.

“When they tell me placing a younger person in an adult setting is not necessarily for the betterment of the individual,” Walker says, “my answer is: ’Who thinks it is?”’

Attorney: No regrets trying teen as adult

Minnesota prosecutor Backstrom didn’t hesitate in prosecuting Matthew Niedere and Clayton Keister, then 17, as adults in the murder of Niedere’s parents. He says he had to “make a very difficult decision whether to put these young men away for their natural lives, or give them a chance.”

He weighed several factors, including their lack of criminal record and research that shows the part of the brain that regulates impulses and aggression is still developing in the 20s.

Backstrom allowed the teens to plead guilty to murder involving an armed robbery — providing for the possibility of parole in 30 years.

More than a decade ago, Backstrom had pressed Minnesota lawmakers to make it easier for prosecutors to take serious cases into adult court.

He was frustrated when he couldn’t try as an adult a 16-year-old who killed an acquaintance in a drug dispute and served less than 1½ years in juvenile detention.

“That’s not justice,” Backstrom says. “He should have gone to prison 15 or 20 years. That’s what would have happened today.”

Using both punishment, prevention

State Attorney Harry Shorstein of Jacksonville, Fla., has his own approach.

“I think I’ve created my own juvenile justice system,” he says. “The secret is not choosing punishment vs. prevention, but using both.”

In 16 years, Shorstein’s office has transferred more than 2,600 juvenile cases to adult court. Almost all those who’ve broken the law go to jail for about a year, where they live separately from adults, attend school and receive social services.

If they stay out of trouble while locked up, and for two years of probation, they don’t get a record.

“I believe crime is like gymnastics,” he says. “It really is a young person’s sport. If you incapacitate a 15- or 16-year-old for a year, you can prevent more crime than if you imprison a 22-year-old for life.”