Lil’ Corey

“It’s like reporting abuse to your abuser.”

“Your crime is against them. It's like reporting abuse to your abuser. I'm out of time, funds, and energy. This family has been broken for a mistake at 16 years of age. He is remorseful, but yet doesn't understand why they would want to be this cruel nor do I. He is now 27 yrs old, and everyday he is studying ways to be better... I'm asking for mercy for my son. I'm asking for someone to investigate this; to make sense of this.” -Lil’ Corey’s mother Marquetta Harrison

Lil’ Corey ran away from home in Kansas City, MO, in 2010 at the age of 16. His mother reported him missing to authorities in Texas where he was apprehended and taken into custody. Hours later, his mother received a call saying Corey had just shot up the detention center. His property was not searched before entering the secured detention center and he had a weapon on him, which he used to shoot through the glass of the intake room. Police stopped him and had to talk the gun out of his hand; “Lil’ Corey kept putting the gun to his head asking for his daddy.”

Prosecutors set bail at $1 million. Corey was later sentenced to 50 years with no chance of parole until he served half his time, a sentence equivalent to 2 life sentences. All this for a mistake at the age of 16; one that could have been prevented if it weren’t for the detention facility’s gross negligence and failure to search him before he entered the facility.

Please click the link here to sign the petition and learn more about Corey’s story:

https://www.change.org/p/ted-cruz-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-for-a-16-yr-old?redirect=false&fbclid=IwAR2zkK787W0Xpis3x2pUXSQu2WFXaLsnXTl5jlu_Gg9j07q4NfyEe35lYTw

JCO: Julian

---

Julian’s interaction with the juvenile criminal justice system revealed the ways in which reform is necessary for true rehabilitation to be seen amongst detained juveniles. Julian transitioned from a career in the foster care system to the County Probation Office. Seeing a void that police and the general law enforcement system was leaving in offending juveniles’ lives, he became a Probation Officer. Julian experienced the rigid conditions juveniles were subjected to with the intentions of “tear [the juveniles] down, hold them accountable, get them to see what they did wrong… [to then] build them up”. As Julian’s years went on with the probation office he began to raise concerns to supervisors of the conditions both the youth and staff were subjected to that were merely “band-aiding” the true problems. Many children suffering from generational curses that paved their way to detainment were being shuffled off into administrative isolation, pulled away from social interactions, which Julian believes furthered many of the mental ailments these youth were already coping with. XX’s “tear them down, to build them up” mentality was a stark contrast with another region’s pro-social behavioral model. While Julian, who worked at this Youth Correctional Facility for over 8 years, saw inadequacies with both Juvenile Facilities resulting in his leaving this system and disinterest in coming back.

---

Julian’s profession in Juvenile Correction Facilities has affirmed his belief that the juvenile justice system is not broken. In fact, he concludes; “The system works the way it’s supposed to”. This was stated in reflection of his time with these detention centers, and the numerous juveniles he encountered over his tenure. He recounts working with a juvenile who was affiliated with a gang and was known for his usage of graffiti. Unlike many of his counterparts, Julian took the time with this youth, sharing videos of individuals who were just as artistically talented as the detained youth, and offered ways in which he could redirect his artistic abilities. But Julian was opposed to the system that would demonize an artistic youth and believed more efficient outlets and solutions should be offered beyond detainment. Despite the numerous youth Julian has interacted with and the possibilities of greatness they may have, the juvenile detention system was merely a “revolving door” to him. Julian views himself as always having been outside of “the club” or group of individuals who were complacent in the sustainment of such a toxic system.

---

“The System works the way it’s supposed to. [] It’s a revolving door.”

Julian’s devotion to dismantling such a disruptive system has been sustained even after leaving the Juvenile Correctional Position. Now working with houseless veterans, Julian is still able to see the pervasiveness of the toxicity of the incarceration system. Julian sees first-hand the increased likelihood of homeless individuals being incarcerated, which decreases the chances of rehabilitation due to the labeling effect a convicted status has on one’s job application, housing application, or any other forms needed to better one’s life. However, the issues of the current carceral system have not deterred him from his work. Julian is continuing to find creative ways to couple his love for social justice, film, and books to assist those who have been exposed to the detriments of the carceral system. Through expanding his current bookstore in Pomona, California, Julian has plans to establish an initiative called, “Mirror to Society Center for Photography” that will provide exposure to both youth and adults transitioning from juvenile detention centers. This initiative is purposed around the eventual hiring of these previously incarcerated individuals to reduce recidivism back into the carceral system. 

---

Imani Vice, Research Intern

---

Always & Forever

M.O., a 16-year-old, has a tattoo “Always and Forever” with a reverse ampersand - she got it last month.

At the time of this visit, she’d been at this facility for 2 weeks - her 8th time. She usually stays  2 to 3 months at a time. 

“I’m waiting to try and find placement, group home that deals with rehab for drugs and alcohol. I was using E, but here they call it “THIZZOES,” the street name for E. I should be a sophomore, but I have no credits for school. The last grade I completed was 8th,” she says. 

“My mom visits. She isn’t a parent; she’s a teenager in a parent body. She has 5 kids; one put up for adoption; one died; she was no job.” 

M.O.’s Mom is 40 and into drugs and alcohol - she has a husband, but he’s not M.O.’s dad. Her dad died when she was 5 or 6 from a morphine overdose. She was abused by her mom, her mom’s husband, and her dad. She was sexually abused by her mom’s husband - he was charged but booked to Mexico. 

“Always and forever means I’m never going to give up; I’m going to always try. I’m not done yet,” she says. 

According to a 2015 study, “The Sexual Abuse to Prison Pipeline: The Girls’ Story,” 39% of girls in the juvenile system have a history of being sexually assaulted, 40% are physically abused, and 56% are domestically abused. For many of these girls, there is a clear link between their experiences with abuse, the lack of appropriate trauma treatment, and the behaviors that led to their arrest.

---

South Carolina: A Cry For Help

“It’s not fair that I had to attempt suicide to be heard, but I don’t want you to ever think that it was your fault.” 

In South Carolina, Upstate Evaluation Center saw the most severe cry for help we can see coming from our children: an unnamed 16-year-old attempted to take her own life in order to get the help she needed from the detention center staff. The teenager’s attempt to take her own life is only the latest in a years-long rise in serious issues within the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. Faced with issues of detention centers being understaffed and staff overworked—frequently working 24-36 hour shifts with no breaks—children incarcerated in South Carolina are not able to get any of the rehabilitative help that they need.  

Senator Katrina Shealy—a South Carolina state senator for the past 10 years—has come out in support of the staff’s newly sparked protests over the poor pay, long hours, and lack of benefits. Shealy says that the DJJ staff used to know every child’s name and that they would walk out “with a trade,” but now youth only leave with an understanding of “how to become a better criminal.” Not only are South Carolina detention centers faced with the problems of staff being overworked, but the director of the department, Freddie Pough, has also failed to report and follow-through on issues of neglect and abuse to welfare and law enforcement agencies, as the law cites.  

---

Simply increasing the budgets of South Carolina’s juvenile detention centers is not enough to see a tangible change that will prevent other children from attempting to take their own life like the 16-year-old in the Upstate Evaluation Center. Children must be released from detention centers and given supportive programming in order to literally save lives. Attempts by children to take their lives results in an unfathomable ripple effect—not only will they have to continue to live with the trauma that led to their attempt, but they, their friends, their family, and the staff and other youth at the center they are incarcerated at will have to heal from the attempt itself. Our children and teenagers need to be given the best shot they can have at the life that they have ahead of them, and incarcerating them and exposing them to severe challenges with little to no support is not the answer.  

In Charleston, South Carolina, the DJJ is working with the Annie E. Casey Foundation to provide alternatives to detention for their local youth. Reducing the population of incarcerated children and teenagers by funding data-backed alternative programs will make local communities in South Carolina safer for youth, their communities, and anyone currently incarcerated or working in a juvenile detention center. While this program is promising for the state, many advocates admit that there must be legislative changes for low-level and nonviolent offending youth in order to see true progress.  

Roger Carter, Juvenile Lifer

I was born in Polishville, Missouri. April 3, 1940. My Mother and Dad died when I was very young. When I was 10-years old I went to Boys Town--East Texas Academy. I was there until I was 11 or 12. It was “Juvie” or an orphanage. From 11 years old I was living with my aunt and uncle. They had other kids and they couldn’t afford me. After 16 years old I was so tired I left and never went back. I was incarcerated since I was 16. I purchased a .32 revolver and went and robbed a hotel. I went to the airport and got a ticket for Havana. I didn’t have an attorney and they charged me with 1st degree murder. I was sent to jail on Mar 17, 1958. It was a 3 ½ month trial. I pleaded guilty to Natural life.

Under the ruling of Miller v. Alabama I am eligible for resentencing because I served 60 years. I want to be resentenced instead of parole. There is no end to Parole in Florida. They expect you to be on parole till you die.

I get no visitors, no letters, no packages. I don’t recall the last time I had a visitor. I don’t have family so no one comes and visits.

Prison is prison, it’s terrible.

I’ve been locked up for 57 of the last 59 years of my life.

When an inmate got arrested their time stopped.

My projected parole date is 2035. What can I do if I am 135 years old? I got no wife, no kids, no girlfriend--no nothing that matters. I miss everything. I got nothing. A guy doing time is a waste. You survive for what? For nothing. I am sick and tired of being sick and tired."

- Roger Carter

When Justice Served is Not Justice At All - Opinion

Last month, the entire country watched with bated breath to see whether the cop who murdered George Floyd on camera last May would be found guilty for murder. Derek Chauvin, the officer who murdered George Floyd last year, was found guilty on all counts: second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. While some are praising the verdict for delivering justice and thanking George Floyd for his “sacrifice,” I argue that this is not justice, and it’s barely scratching the surface of accountability. 

This verdict provides a false sense of justice as a means of inhibiting abolition or any true, meaningful change to prevent future harm. Justice is not locking up the cop who killed George Floyd. Justice is law enforcement not killing anyone in the first place. Justice is abolishing the institutions that killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Daunte Wright, and countless others. Justice is George Floyd being alive, and this verdict does not bring George Floyd back.

George Floyd was not a martyr for civil rights nor did he “sacrifice his life for justice.” He was murdered by the police, and countless Black Americans face the same institutionalized violence every day in this country. 274 people have been shot by the police this year alone. Last month, 20-year-old Daunte Wright was murdered by police during a traffic stop in Brooklyn Center, not far from Minneapolis where George Floyd was killed last year. Just minutes before the Chauvin verdict was announced in Minneapolis, police shot and killed Ma’Khia Bryant, a 16-year-old Black girl in Columbus, OH. These are just a few of the Black Americans killed by police recently. Their deaths are evidence that justice has not been served. 

STOP

Demonstrators stage a sit-in at the Ohio State University student union in Columbus on Wednesday. (Maddie McGarvey for The Washington Post)

Black Americans still face violence at the hands of law enforcement every day. This verdict won’t change that and neither will locking up Derek Chauvin. What it will do, however, is subject him to overwhelming trauma and/or violence once incarcerated, which some believe is a well-deserved punishment for his actions. When we see something as egregious as an officer of the law kneeling on the neck of a civilian, we jump to the harshest possible punishment to provide some sense of relief, fairness, and justice- an eye for an eye and all that. Our carceral instincts, so deeply ingrained in us by the U.S. government’s reliance on violent, punitive solutions to crime, tell us that this is real justice. Yet still, harsh punishments and long prison sentences do absolutely nothing to solve the issue of police violence. 

I argue that no one deserves to be in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, as Chauvin currently is and likely will be throughout his prison sentence for his own safety. This kind of extensive isolation “manufactures and aggravates mental illness. It has not solved any problems; at best it has maintained them,” says executive director Rick Raemisch of Colorado DOC,. Long-term solitary confinement may trigger new psychiatric symptoms or exacerbate existing ones, including panic attacks, hallucinations, and even self harm or suicide. A 2020 study of solitary confinement units in New York state correctional facilities found suicide rates were five times higher in solitary confinement than the general New York prison population, and self harm was seven times as common in solitary. That being said, the United Nations, New York State Bar Association, and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care consider long-term solitary confinement a “form of torture.” 

We can hate what Chauvin did. I sure do. It was a brutal and racist act of state-sanctioned violence that took George Floyd’s life, doing irreparable harm to his family and Black Americans everywhere. But locking him up and subjecting him to the trauma of incarceration is not a solution; it is a bandaid on the literal and figurative bullet wounds created by our current institutions of carceral punishment and racist law enforcement. It reinforces the current pervasive cycle of institutional violence and does absolutely nothing to mend the harm done to George Floyd’s family and Black and Brown communities everywhere.

The Hennepin County District Judge ruled that Chauvin should qualify for a tougher sentence, and Chauvin and the three other officers were indicted by a federal grand jury just last week. The federal charges could elongate Chauvin’s state sentence, and some are praising the Justice Department for finally taking action to curb police violence.

That being said, a guilty verdict, federal charges, and a long sentence does little more than provide a false sense of justice. In the absence of full abolition of police and prisons, police violence will continue to go unchecked and Americans will continue to be subjected to violence once incarcerated. Real justice is the police never taking another Black life, taking another life, and abolition is the only possible avenue to achieve that.

When a Minor's Offense Isn't Minor

“I believe that each person is more than the worst thing they've ever done” -Bryan Stevenson

Last week, a Virginia man was killed in a carjacking in DC. He was a husband, a father, and a grandfather. His name was Mohammad Anwar. Mr. Anwar immigrated to the U.S. from Pakistan in 2014 “to build a better life for himself,” said his family. He was working as an UberEats delivery driver when he was the victim of a carjacking that led to a fatal crash, killing Mr. Anwar. This event is nothing short of tragic and should never have happened. Mr Anwar should not have died this way. 

Carjacking, or motor vehicle theft, is up 35% in the District since last year. As of Monday, there have been 101 carjackings in D.C. this year, compared to just 22 in 2020 over the same length of time. For some reason, kids have been increasingly involved with this sort of crime. All in all, 23 kids (aged 12-17) have been arrested in D.C. this year for carjacking alone. Police suggest that teens are more likely to be involved in this sort of crime because they “simply want the thrill of a joyride.” 

In this case, the alleged perpetrators of this carjacking are two 13 and 15-year-old girls- not even old enough to drive. The teens allegedly “assaulted the victim with a taser while carjacking the victim which resulted in a motor vehicle accident," said Metro Police Department. One of them had been arrested for a similar incident earlier this year. Following the release of the rather brutal footage of the event, people are calling for these kids to be charged as adults. 

In the video, one of the girls is seen jumping from the flipped vehicle, saying “My phone is in there!” Some people consider it a demonstration of apathy toward the harm they had just caused, but I would argue that it was simply an example of a child in shock; a child who had just made an arguably reckless, deadly mistake without the adult-level critical thinking skills to fully comprehend what had just happened. The girl’s stress about losing her phone gained widespread media coverage.

Brutal incidents like this often invoke a sort of knee-jerk response, causing people to call for the harshest possible punishment as they grapple with the events that led to a man’s death. It’s understandable; if something like this happened to my loved one I would be angry and so would you. But charging these kids as adults will not bring him back. 

What it will do, however, is brand these kids for life for a mistake they made at 13 or 15 years old. Mr. Anwar’s life mattered, but these kids' lives do, too. These kids made a mistake- they set out to commit a crime, yes, but they had no way of knowing their plan would go horribly wrong.  They caused irreparable harm, but does that mean they should be thrown away? Locked away for felony murder because of a mistake they made as teenagers?

"The 15-year-old would not be charged as an adult. You know, obviously, this is a tragic case and, you know, charging this person as an adult [who’s] a juvenile … does not bring back the lost loved one in this case," said Acting D.C. Police Chief Contee

Technically, the 15 year old could be charged as an adult in D.C. because they were charged with felony murder. Under the Felony-Murder Rule “a defendant can be convicted of murder even if the defendant did not act with intent or a reckless indifference; the prosecution must show only that the defendant participated in a felony where fatalities occurred.” These types of charges can carry either several years to a life sentence, with or without the possibility of parole. 

Some states entirely ban the application of Felony-Murder Rule to children but most states do not; the District of Columbia does not. In their 2020 State Ratings report, Human Rights for Kids insists that kids fail to “appreciate the unintended consequences of their actions.” This is especially apparent in “felony murder cases where children can be criminally convicted of murder even though they did not… intend to kill anyone.” In order to be consistent with human rights standards, courts must treat children differently than adults in sentencing, and, in doing so, ban the Felony-Murder Rule for kids. That being said, D.C. does statutorily ban life without parole for juvenile offenders, yet de facto life sentences are unfortunately still on the table.

At the start of 2020, over 1,400 people in the U.S. were serving life-without-parole for offenses committed as kids. Under Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to mandatory life without parole. However, “de facto” life sentences, or “non-life sentences that are so long that the sentenced person will likely die or live out a significant majority of their natural lives” in prison remain common. As of 2016, over 2,000 people were serving de facto life sentences for something they did as a kid.

Kids’ brains are fundamentally different from adults when it comes to decision making. Brain development evidence indicates that teens are less likely to think before they act or pause to consider the consequences of their actions because that critical parts of the brain are not fully developed until age 25. Even by age 18, the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain that helps inhibit impulses) is not fully developed. You can’t even rent a car until the age of 25, so why should someone be charged as an adult and virtually sentenced to life without parole for a decision they made when they were 15? 

Adolescence is marked by “immaturity, impetuosity, and a failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” argues Supreme Court Justice Kagan in Miller (2012.) Not only that, but Kagan argues that kids are at a fundamental disadvantage in criminal proceedings because they are less able to assist in their own defense and “are likely to respond poorly to the high pressures of interrogation” (Sentencing Project.) 

Luckily, the 13 and 15-year-olds’ case is being handled in juvenile court, where officials have “rightly stressed rehabilitation rather than punishment of troubled youths.” The prosecution is likely to offer them a plea deal. Still, public outcry demands they be charged as adults; if that was your first response to an incident like this, too, I urge you to consider why? Why is our go-to response in terrible incidents like this punishment and vengeance? What does this say about our current perception of justice? Why do we equate punitive vengeance to remedying harm? Why are we so reluctant to show mercy for children, despite the mistakes they made and harm they caused? Think about these questions and really dig deep to find the answer. 

Charging them as adults and locking them up for life won’t bring Mr. Anwar back. It won’t repair the harm and pain inflicted upon his family and friends. Treating these kids as adults, branding them for life when they aren’t even old enough to drive a car, buy cigarettes, or vote- that’s not justice. How can we honor him without throwing away these kids' lives?

Resources to learn more:

GoFundMe for Mr. Anwar’s family

The Sentencing Project: Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview

Our blog post on De Facto Life Sentences

Interviews with Juvie Lifers

***

Article composed April 19th, 2021

Decarceration, Not Isolation.

Dan Martinez

This pandemic has proved challenging, isolating, and seemingly never ending. Most of us are confined to our homes, or at least seriously limited in whom amongst our loved ones we can see and when we can see them. Most of us still sleep in our own bed and see our family or loved ones with whom we live. We can connect with friends and family outside of our household via video chat or at a distance. Many of us can work from home or attend school via Zoom, too. For incarcerated kids, however, it’s not that simple. 

Juvenile detention is lonely and isolating as it is; kids are separated from their support systems (families, friends, teachers, community members) and thrown into an entirely new environment, sometimes facing months to years of confinement. The COVID-19 Pandemic has only exaggerated these circumstances, further cutting kids off from people they love. They are effectively isolated from everyone (except corrections officers) all while their lives hang in the balance as they fear contracting a possibly deadly virus. States have restricted or entirely eliminated visitation from family and legal counsel, some even cancelling their education programs in the facilities too. 

It seems that the only way to curb the spread of COVID and effectively quarantine within a correctional facility is isolation, which is basically solitary confinement, a practice that has been prohibited for kids in many states and by international human rights standards. The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency consider placing kids in solitary confinement “cruel, inhumane, [and] degrading.” A proposed ban in the UN highlights solitary confinement as “an affront to the humanity and vulnerability of any child,” according to the ACLU. And yet, the Marshall Project reports that some teens are in isolation for as much as 23 hours a day, reporting that the pandemic is making juvenile facilities look eerily similar to adult prisons.

Despite these restrictions, there were nearly 3500 COVID-19 cases in juvenile detention facilities as of December 2020- or, 3500 that we know of, rather.

41 states plus DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico have reported COVID-19 cases among detained youth, according to the Sentencing Project. It seems that many facilities (particularly privately managed ones) are reluctant to share information regarding the spread of COVID-19 in their facilities. This means we may not even know the full extent to which kids are being exposed to the coronavirus while incarcerated. Plus, higher case numbers in a given jurisdiction may be indicative of more aggressive testing when compared to states that either aren’t testing as many kids or aren’t publicly sharing the number of cases. This begs the question: what does this mean for states with low numbers? It’s not unlikely that state’s with less reported cases may just not be testing as many kids in detention. How many cases are going unreported, untreated?

This has been an issue since the start of the year-long (and counting) global health crisis. In April 2020, early on in the pandemic, the Bon Air Juvenile Correctional Center outside Richmond, VA, had the worst known outbreak of COVID-19 in a youth correctional facility. At the time, 25% of publicly reported cases at youth facilities were reported at this single facility. Kids inside were “reporting chaos,” according to Rachael Dean, legal director of the JustChildren Program at VA’s Legal Aid Justice Center. Kids were not receiving adequate medical care, testing, or protective gear. Many parents report that they were unable to contact their children and were not notified if/when they tested positive for the virus.To slow the spread, the facility “stopped visitors, suspended schooling, ended counseling and locked at least some teens in their cells 23 hours a day.” 

Many incarcerated kids are being held pre-trial, which means they have not been convicted of a crime. Since courts are closed or their functions seriously limited, these kids “must wait even longer, in more psychologically damaging conditions, to argue for their freedom.” Amongst those in detention, about 70% of youth are being held on non-violent offenses, which means that holding these kids in this dangerous situation serves “little, if any, public safety interest.” This means that they are being held in isolation merely because they are suspected of a crime. They are not receiving typical rehabilitative services or sufficient education. They are alone, fearing for their lives, and for what? 

“Does anyone believe that rehabilitation can occur in a locked facility during a pandemic?” If not, “what are we actually doing still holding children in these facilities?”

— Nate Balis, director of Juvenile Justice Strategy Group at the Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

The Sentencing Project argues that the only way to reduce exposure to the virus and mitigate the spread is to reduce the number of incarcerated youth. Jurisdictions such as Clayton County, GA, and Fresno County, CA, are releasing kids from their facilities. As of May 2020, following the height of the first wave of the pandemic, only 10 states had taken steps at the state level to reduce the number of incarcerated children. Not only will doing so materially limit the number of kids exposed to COVID in juvenile facilities, but it will ensure that kids are not locked up unnecessarily, completely isolated from their loved ones and others within the facility, fearing for their lives day in and day out, alone. 

It’s easy to throw up our hands and say “well, what are we supposed to do? Isolation is the only option for these kids.” But when we consider the emotional, intellectual, and physical toll these conditions are taking on these kids, many of whom are neither convicted nor violent, the only option is decarceration. It is releasing kids to their families (especially, but not exclusively, kids awaiting trial) and significantly reducing the incarcerated youth population in all states. It is ensuring that these kids have a support system and an education during this stressful period in our history and their lives specifically.

Too Young For Population, Not For Life in Prison - Meet Qu'eed

Meet Qu’eed Batts

“I have been incarcerated since the age of 14 in adult facilities, so my time in isolation started the day I was arrested. I spent 21 months in county prison in isolation because I was too young for general population. 

Not too young to face spending the rest of my life in prison, but too young to be in population.”

Qu’eed Batts, Age 30

Meet Qu’eed. Now, labeled as a Juvie Lifer by the PA DOC, Qu’eed spent the majority of his childhood in the foster care system from ages 5-12 before his conviction and JLWOP sentence at age 14. Qu’eed has spent time working on honing his voice and developing a keen sense of what justice means to him from his own experience and life, and through his voice hopes to educate as his greatest pride is having helped those he loves stay away from the path he himself went down. 

While being incarcerated, Qu’eed has “cofounded ARC which stands for Abolitionist Reading Circle with other incarcerated human beings at [the facility in which he is held] with the help of an outside liaison where we connect people from the outside with people on the inside and read books dealing with mass incarceration, inequality, dealing with poor housing and education, and destroying oppressive institutions and try to find solutions to replace these oppressive institutions with healing institutions.” He has worked on Transformative Justice in Practice pamphlets with other individuals, and is a leader in a mentorship program where residents mentor one another on the foundation or idea that “95% of incarcerated people will be released back out into society so if we don't challenge each other to grow and learn from the bad decisions we made - not only will we go out and make the same bad decisions but we won't have the tools to prevent the generations behind us from making the same bad decisions. So to explain what [the program] is to me I would have to say that it is a form of transformative justice because through the positive conversations that take place in that setting we are teaching each other how to prevent harm from taking place in our communities, not only once we return home but in here as well.” 

---

Qu’eed and his wife.

---

He is a barber, a leader, has a GED under his belt, and someone who credits his growth to the figures who have helped him move away from the gangs and find the tools, acceptance, and assistance needed in order to start progressing towards a different place in his life.

Now 30, Qu’eed has spent more time on the inside than the outside, truly coming to age behind bars. In the wake of Jones v. Mississippi, we are reminded of the inherent ability within our youth to change, to grow, and above all else, that we as individuals are worth so much more than the worst thing that we have ever done in our lives. In the fight for Juvenile Lifers and to end Juvenile Life Without Parole sentencing in the United States, Qu’eed is one of many, but his story stands out strong.

We are excited to share his story here at JIJ, and to have him fighting along with us for a future where these inhumane sentences are no longer plausible, and where Qu’eed and others in the same position can come home. 

Kids are Sentenced to Death Too

Arden Lesoravage & Dan Martinez

---

We have so much hope for our children, frequently telling them that they have their whole lives ahead of them. In their eyes, we see boundless possibilities for what their future holds: being a dancer, an engineer, a farmer, a teacher—whatever they can dream of. Protecting and uplifting our children to help them achieve their dreams is inherent to American beliefs, yet countless children have their futures ripped away from them and determined at a young age through the abuse and neglect that they experience. These formative experiences can truly change a child’s entire life, doing irreparable harm to both them and their families.  

 “All but one prisoner executed in 2020 had evidence of one or more of the following significant impairments: serious mental illness (8); brain injury, developmental brain damage, or an IQ in the intellectually disabled range (6); chronic serious childhood trauma, neglect, and/or abuse (14)” (DPIC). Experiencing childhood trauma, abuse, and neglect make our children more vulnerable to the criminal justice system and being taken advantage of. We see this in the stories of Lisa Montgomery, Dustin Higgs, Corey Johnson, Nicholas Sutton, Billy Joe Wardlow, Keith Nelson, Christopher Vialva, and Brandon Bernard: all sentenced to death. 

Lisa Montgomery experienced decades of childhood abuse, being raped, sex trafficked, physically and mentally abused, and had various disabilities and mental illnesses. Dustin Higgs had intellectual disabilities and was abused as a child, and never received any supplemental support. Corey Johnson was abandoned as a child and also flagged for having intellectual disabilities, yet never found a safe family to take him in or received any support for his disabilities. Nicholas Sutton was also severely abused as a child, as was Billy Joe Wardlow, who tried to take his own life three separate times as a teenager. Keith Nelson experienced multiple signs of mental illness, likely from experiencing fetal alcohol syndrome and being sexually and physically abused. Christopher Vialva and Brandon Bernard were both convicted as teenagers for the same crime, fallen to the pressure of their peers.  

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that executing people with intellectual disabilities was in violation of the 8th Amendment, yet “prosecutors and defense lawyers frequently tangle in court over whether someone actually suffers from” intellectual disability. Inadequate legal representation and legal requirements oftentimes allow for those with intellectual disabilities to receive a capital punishment sentence and ultimately be executed by the state.  

Many activists were confused as to how such great injustices were able to be committed with the precedent that the Supreme Court has set. The harsh reality is that once a jury rules on the facts that have been presented to them in court, an individual on trial has their fate sealed. While they can still go through the appeals process, the appeals court only deal with fallacies in the law, not in case fact. Simply put, they only deal in the black and white—and therefore do not entertain the grey areas of a case. During an individual’s trial, they need to have representation that will adequately present a clear and strong fact pattern so that the jury can better understand any mitigating and aggravating circumstances. However, because both of these judgements are entirely opinion-based, once a jury has made their opinion based on what was presented to them, that is what is sentenced. There are no considerations in jury deliberation for what might be there, only what is presented. That makes it infinitely easier for a harsher sentenced to be pursued.  

2020 saw the executions of many individuals who were abused as children, leading to their participation in crime as older teens and adults, as well as more vulnerable to being taken advantage of by the courts system. “The death penalty is a poor person's issue. In the end, it's the poor who are selected to die in this country. You'll never find a rich person on death row.” Helen Prejean notes that persons living in poverty, as disabled individuals will far too frequently be, are also targeted by the courts system. We have to speak out against these injustices so that our children who go unprotected do not have their lives taken from them prematurely.  

Transgender Youth In Detention

Dan Martinez, Research Intern

---

Note: For the purpose of this piece, I use “queer” and “LGBTQ” interchangeably to when referring to the full spectrum of non-cisgender/heterosexual identities. I also use “trans” and “gender-nonconforming” interchangeably to describe anyone who does not identify as cisgender. 

---

Queer and trans youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, and this is especially true for queer youth of color. Of the general youth population, only 5-7% of kids in the U.S. are LGBTQ. Among incarcerated youth, that percentage skyrockets to 13-15%. Some sources even estimate that number is  much higher; the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that 20% of sampled incarcerated youth identify as LGBT or gender-nonconforming; among those queer youth, 85% identified as youth of color. 

What causes this overrepresentation? In addition to the existing significant racial disparities in our justice system as a whole, factors specifically tied to queer youth may lead to heightened criminalization and incarceration. Queer kids entering the juvenile justice system are twice as likely to have experienced family conflict, child abuse, and homelessness than the general incarcerated youth population, according to the Center for American Progress. Queer kids are often rejected by their family, kicked out of their homes, or forced to flee hostile or abusive situations. After being cast out of their homes, they’re left emotionally and physically vulnerable and forced to find a way to survive. 

“I am a  transgender female. They have me living in an isolation area for the past 7 months I think to protect me against suicide, but also keep me sort of away from the other girls. I live on the street with older friends who are part of “that life.” They’re mostly people who are positive about who I am but also got involved in stuff like burglary, drugs, and prostitution. I don’t mind being separate from other girls, but I miss the interaction.” -A.S. Age 17

They’ll most likely wind up homeless, which is the greatest predictor of involvement with the justice system. The Trevor Project reports that as much as 40% of the homeless youth population is LGBTQ.  These kids often resort to various survival methods, such as theft, drug dealing, or transactional sex. These behaviors are criminalized and often land them in jail. Of the homeless queer youth population, 39% report involvement with the justice system.  Not to mention the fact that trans/gender nonconforming kids often have negative interactions with law enforcement; police frequently profile trans kids for prostitution based on their gender-nonconforming appearence or presence in specific neighborhoods. They are more likely to be arrested or detained for truancy, warrants, probation violations, and other “low level and victimless offenses related to economic and social marginalization.” These interactions are compounded by racial profiling as well, making trans and queer youth of color even more vulnerable and at risk for criminalization. 

Once in the juvenile justice system, trans and gender nonconforming kids are often inappropriately classified based on their sex assigned at birth, which can prompt gender dysphoria, negatively impact mental health, and place them at high risk for victimization. For example, a trans girl may be erroneously placed in a male facility, making her vulnerable to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse once incarcerated. In addition, staff often wrongly stereotype trans youth as predatory or threatening, despite no such evidence to support that. Some facilities automatically segregate gender nonconforming kids or place them in solitary confinement “for their own safety.” Segregation or isolation not only has a negative impact on incarcerated kids’ mental wellbeing, but it “perpetuates stigmatization, casts them as sexually deviant, and signals they might be a threat.”

These children are criminalized for their nonviolent means of survival; instead of housing them and providing them security and support, they are criminalized in a system “not equipped to manage the unique experiences and challenges that these young people face.” Above all else, queer and trans kids deserve, need compassion, institutional support, and a safe, trauma-informed environment, which our system not only fails to provide, but instead actively continues to traumatize them once incarcerated. Queer and trans youth should be allowed to self-determine in which facility they should be placed based on where they feel the safest. Facilities should train corrections staff to prevent discrimination and ensure they can adequately support queer and trans youth. Most of all, our society must stop criminalizing homelessness and poverty so homeless queer youth get the support they need, rather than a prison sentence.

De Facto Life Sentences

Dan Martinez, Research Intern

“It has been 43 years that I have not seen my family. Just give me the death penalty. I am never getting out of prison. I am going to die here. This is slavery. -Robert Saunders”

Robert Saunders went to juvenile detention center for 11 months for felonious assault at age 12. Robert lived on the street for about a year after being released before returning to detention for rape and kidnapping with little evidence. He’s been in prison for 43 years and he’s only 58 years old.

Let’s talk about de facto life sentences. What is a de facto life sentence anyway? A de facto life sentence (sometimes called “virtual” life sentences) are  “non-life sentences that are so long that the sentenced person will likely die or live out a significant majority of their natural lives before they are released.” (Restore Justice) 

What about kids sentenced to virtual life sentences? Human Rights for Kids considers life without parole sentences one of the worst human rights violations, as “such sentences cast an irrevocable judgement on a child that deem [them] unworthy of living in free society ever again- no matter how much [they] change over time.” Not only is this cruel from a human rights perspective, but there is increasing scientific evidence to support the abolition of life without parole sentences for kids convicted of a crime (but we’ll get to that later.)

Despite the clear ethical dilemmas associated with juvenile life without parole and de facto life sentences, these sentences are far too common. As of 2016, 2,310 individuals who were kids at the time of their crime are serving life without parole. Life with parole? 7,346. And 2,089 are serving virtual life sentences.

Figure 1 from The Sentencing Project

Okay, but why are kids still being sentenced to die in prison when there is case law in place to protect them? Well, the scope of that case law is pretty narrow. 

Under Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to mandatory life without parole. Sentencing individuals to life in prison for acts committed as kids is a violation of the 8th Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause. Graham and Miller rendered juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses unconstitutional and barred its imposition as a mandatory statute, respectively (Sentencing Project.) These rulings only account for explicitly determined life sentences; ie, these cases do exclude virtual life sentences, or sentences that are so long that the individual will likely die in prison. Further, they only protect kids who committed non-capital offenses. That being said, eight state supreme courts have since ruled that de facto life sentences also violate the Graham and Miller rulings. (Sentencing Project) 

Both Graham and Miller were argued using evidence that kids’ brains are fundamentally different from adults because their decision making abilities are not fully developed until around the age 25. So what about kids who are convicted of a capital offense? Shouldn’t that same argument apply to them as well? 

When we look at the existing brain development research, it’s clear that kids’ brains are fundamentally different from adults’. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, adolescents’ actions “are guided more by the emotional and reactive amygdala and less by the thoughtful, logical frontal cortex.” The AACAP also notes that exposure to drugs or alcohol can change or delay these developments. 

What does this mean? Well, it means kids and teens are more likely to act on impulse, get involved in fights, and engage in risky behavior. Teens are less likely to think before they act or pause to consider the consequences of their actions. Neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt attributes this to the fact that critical parts of the brain are not fully developed until age 25. Even by age 18, the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain that helps inhibit impulses) is not fully developed. You can’t even rent a car until the age of 25, so why should someone be sentenced to life without parole for a decision they made when they were 14, 15, 16? 

Aside from the mounting scientific evidence, de facto life sentences for kids are unethical and cruel from a human perspective. Not only are kids’ brains not fully developed until age 25, rendering them incapable of sound decision making to the same degree as an adult, but a life sentence (de facto or not) eliminates any possibility of growth or rehabilitation. Kids who made a bad decision deserve compassion and help to remedy the harm done, not life in prison. 

Click here to listen to the stories of “Juvie Lifers,” or people who were sentenced as kids and are now in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and eighty years old.

Juvenile Offender to be Released at Age 83: Joseph Ligon

He shouldn’t have had the opportunity to be known as “America’s oldest Juvenile Lifer” but he did. At age 83, Joseph Ligon, a juvenile offender, is being released after being granted relief last November.

His story is one we have told many times before. Joe Ligon was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced by an all-white, three-judge panel. His attorney told him to plead guilty. He recounts one day of a trial where he wasn’t even present. He became a “JLWOP”—Juvenile Life Without Parole. At the time of the arrest he was 15. Ligon was sent to die in prison. 

In one of his letters to us some time back, Joe said, “I Hope I Live Long Enough To See No Other Youngster Treated As I Was Treated.” 

The laws intent was to see Ligon die in prison will never come true. And, if we keep fighting hard enough, Ligon’s next wish will too. 

Joseph Ligon will be released on February 11 [two days from now]. With 68 years in prison served, he will be outside of prison walls for the first time since 1953 this week.  

When juvenile delinquency is the symptom, not the problem.

By Dan Martinez, Research Intern

“They have me wearing this suicide tunic the first 24 hours I am in here or longer, depending. I’ve been here before, done this before, worn this before” -O.P., age 15

Kids in the juvenile justice system experience mental health problems at a disproportionate rate; It’s estimated that ⅔ of youth in detention or correctional settings have at least one diagnosable mental health problem, compared to just 9-22% of the general population. Substance use disorders and externalizing disorders (such as conduct disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, and antisocial behaviors) are among the most commonly diagnosed amongst juveniles in the justice system; unsurprising, as those same mental health issues have been shown to increase the likelihood of violence and contact with the justice system. Research shows that there is growing evidence that mental health issues are directly linked to delinquency and recidivism. In this case, juvenile delinquency is the symptom, not the problem. 

---

This is especially concerning as individuals in the juvenile justice system experience high rates of childhood violence and sexual abuse. When asked what percentage of girls have been sexually abused before entering a residential program in California, director Dr. Les Forman responded “what percentage? Every one. All 88 girls in our custody.” This statistic is heartbreaking on its own, but even more so when you consider how that trauma is exacerbated as a result of juvenile justice system involvement. 

While causation is difficult to prove empirically, there is a correlation between childhood violence, sexual abuse, and mental health disorders in kids in the justice system. Kids with post traumatic stress disorder, for example, “are liable to respond to perceived threats aggressively.” For example, a California study found that 32% of incarcerated boys in the juvenile justice system met the criteria for PTSD and also exhibited “lower levels of restraint, impulse control, and suppression of aggression.” Childhood trauma and previous sexual abuse are predictors for mental health disorders and, in turn, interactions with the justice system. 

While childhood violence and resulting mental health disorders are predictors for juvenile justice system involvement, the justice system itself can exacerbate mental health problems as well. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that juvenile detention facilities may negatively impact youths with mental health disorders due to lack of access to treatment and separation from support systems. In fact, incarcerated youth are two to four times greater risk for suicide than youth in the general population. Predictably, being placed in solitary confinement or restrictive housing also has the potential to worsen mental health issues.

Bearing this in mind, it’s not surprising that there’s a lack of adequate treatment for kids in the justice system. In fact, only a fraction in need of mental health treatment can actually access those services due to a lack of referrals. This is often due to a lack of screening upon intake at the facility; a 2014 juvenile residential facility census found that only 58% [of facilities] screen every kid for mental health issues upon arrival at the facility. Further, despite the pervasiveness of substance abuse, 42% of youth residing in juvenile corrections facilities do not receive any substance abuse treatment.

“42% of youth residing in juvenile corrections facilities do not receive any substance abuse treatment.”

If so many incarcerated kids are victims of trauma and abuse, experiencing mental illness and addiction at disproportionate rates, why does our system so often respond with punishment rather than treatment? Confinement rather than compassion? If delinquency is the symptom rather than the disease itself, why does the current system further subjugate vulnerable individuals rather than treating the root causes of their behavior?

Well, it seems that our society’s reliance on corrections rather than community support is largely to blame. Mental health resources are limited; by putting so much of those resources into juvenile justice programs, we must rely on the juvenile justice system to treat mental health issues. Even so, kids in the justice system still aren’t getting the critical care they need.  As a result, those mental health and behavioral issues are criminalized, and vulnerable kids are often placed in the most restrictive form of care to obtain resources rather than being referred to community mental health services because, well, there aren’t any. 

Instead, we as a society should reinvest in community mental health services as a front line defense to reduce initial involvement with the justice system and future recidivism. In juvenile sentencing decisions, mental illness, trauma, and substance use should be taken into consideration. All juvenile facilities should screen kids for mental health issues so their treatment needs can be met and they can receive the support they need to succeed. This will prevent further trauma, worse mental health outcomes, and separation from support systems. Most of all, it will ensure that kids are treated with compassion rather than confinement. 

---

Terrence Graham: “Times here changed for everyone except for us On the inside, things are still running the same.”

Terrence Graham’s case was one of the few to bring something new to the legal system; a system frequently resistant to change. Lawyers work within a framework; innovating perspective to the same ideas. Judges are confined by precedent, often hesitant to overturn or create common law. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) decided that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause for a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life without parole for a non-homicidal offense. Individuals age out of the juvenile system when they turn 25. Of the estimated 250,000 juveniles tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year across the United States, Terrence’s case directly impacts every one of them for the better (National Juvenile Justice Network).

Terrence was sentenced when he was 16 years old. He is now 34 years old and has 50 months of his sentence left to serve. Terrence grew up in prison.  He is in Florida, where when asked about services and programming to help him assimilate to a different world when he leaves prison responded: “No I am not getting any counseling right now. Unfortunately Florida D.O.C. does not provide this type of help to us inmates…” Terrence continues on to attribute a lack of programming to be a direct cause of future recidivism. 

Decarceration is ultimately moot if formerly incarcerated individuals don’t have the necessary skills and resources to avoid returning to prison, including housing and job assistance programs. 

The Prison Policy Initiative suggests that poverty is the strongest predictor for recidivism. Though we are quick to wish away COVID-19, it is likely that the virus and surrounding circumstances will long impact our lives. With this in mind, reentry programs become even more vital to the success of formerly incarcerated individuals upon release from a facility. 

“In the best of times, the reentry process is extraordinarily difficult and emotionally taxing… they must struggle against the sanctioned stigma of a criminal record, restricting education, employment, and housing opportunities… extreme physical and mental health risk. This includes the odds of fatal overdose, which is up to 130 times more likely for those in the first two weeks post-release than in the general population… But these are not normal times. The coronavirus pandemic is drastically compounding the challenges of reentry. With the economy in free fall, some requirements of supervised release- like obtaining housing and employment- are virtually unattainable.”

- (HELPING PEOPLE TRANSITION FROM INCARCERATION TO SOCIETY DURING A PANDEMIC Leo Beletsky & Sterling Johnson)

But Terrence points something else out that should stop everyone in their tracks. 

“Times have changed for everyone except for us on the inside, things are still running the same!”

The world has changed considerably since Terrence Graham was first incarcerated. Terrence has served the last 18 years in prison and will be 37 when released. In total, he will have served 21 years; meaning he will have lived more of his life behind bars than out. Considering the last month in the United States, imagine having lived in the last 18 years in a completely frozen world; while everyone on the outside has continued to evolve, become increasingly dependent on technology, and so much more, prisons remain static for everyone inside. Terrence’s most formative years as a young adult were spent incarcerated, and this scenario is all too common amongst incarcerated people. How do we expect people to do that and survive - or, at the very least, stay out of prison? Based on the available statistics - without prison reform, proper reentry counseling, programming, and education, we can’t. 47% of people released from prison in 2005 were rearrested within 3 years (Prison Policy Initiative). In California, that number is closer to 65% returning to the CA system according to a 2021 report (California Innocence Project).

We can choose where we go, who we see and what we do… IF we have the resources to do so. Those of a different economic status have to work in areas that are less rigorous in their safety requirements are more at risk. There is a world of choices on the outside… but only for those not “incarcerated” by economic privation. It is significant to hear this voice in terms of those on the “outs” and in the world of COVID and choices. It is significant to hear this voice in terms of those who are on the “outs” and in the world of being talked at, and not to. 

Terrence knows law is resilient to change, but he knows it can happen. He writes that he is hoping - hoping for a type of prison reform. Until then, he says canteen helps him. For a man who grew up in prison, his two asks seem pretty reasonable. 

Terrence will be speaking about his case in its 10 year anniversary with the Catholic University Columbus School of Law on February 5th, 1 p.m. - 5:15 p.m as part of their Law Review Symposium, Register here.