"There is a tremendously disproportionate number of African-Americans and Hispanics in detention centers where we know the majority of the population in those counties is not minority," said an irritated Assemblyman William Payne, D-Essex.This is true and it mirrors the high rates of incarciration for people of color generally in the Garden State. The majority white populations of these counties live in extraordinarily affluent areas (Glen Ridge, Montclair, etc.) compared with their urban peers (yes, that means you, Newark, Irvington, East Orange, etc.) presumably where the majority of these young inmates are being drawn from. The same is true in other counties with an urban center, not just Essex, all across New Jersey.
So what to do?
One of the problems seems to be that police are allowed to exercise discretion when diverting youths into the juvenile justice system, but often times, they opt not to use this program for young people of color.
"For minor charges and for some first-time offenders, police can act without an accused having to go to court. The process is supposed to work with the police officer discussing the offense with the youth, a parent or guardian, and with the victim. As a result, the youth may pay restitution or do community service.If I were a betting man, I'd say that one of the proposed solutions will suggest a new plan that deals with all young people in a uniform fashion, so individual police biases don't have an opportunity to play a role in the decision-making process.Delinquency, vandalism and disorderly behavior are the sort of charges the program targets."
This is wrong! And it's how we got to the place we're at today with mandatory minimum sentences.
After seeing rich white defendants going free because of their community connections, highly paid lawyers and general ability to make a judge feel like you're not a danger to society, bright politicians got "tough on crime" with mandatory sentences, based on the weight of the drugs involved, handcuffing a judge's ability to tailor a sentence based on the totality of the defendant's involvement, and not just the weight of the drugs they were caught with.
Is it possible that police and politicians could just become aware that this bias exists and then try to avoid it in the future? I doubt it. But I know one-size-fits-all sentences do nothing to ensure that justice is served.
So what will New Jersey pols do? We'll have to wait and see...
6 comments:
This article says that those thrown in juvenile detention are saddled with lifelong criminal records. I was under the impression that juvenile records are expunged once an individual turns 18. Is this not the case? Please enlighten us, o tribune of eternal indignation.
I'm certainly no expert on the juvenile justice system, (and I'm certainly not any more eternally indignant than some of the other blogs I link to) but my understanding is that while juvenile records are supposed to be sealed and confidential, they are not automatically expunged and so can be discovered by others in the years after the individual turns 18.
You may recall one of the police shootings under Guliani where an unarmed man, Patrick Dorismond, was shot and killed after the police stopped him and asked him for drugs. Giuliani immediately sought to justify the police action by bringing out Dorismond's juvenile record. Questions were raised about how it obtained the information that was supposed to be sealed and the mayor responded, "The law is that when you die, your privacy interests end."
I think the Supreme Court disagrees, but that's another post entirely.
I suppose my question is whether being confined to a detention center as a juvenile would necessarily have any impact on an individual's employment prospects after the age of 18. Would one be required to say 'yes' when asked if ever convicted of a crime on a job application?
I'm sure being locked up when you're a teenager, has some impact on you, even if it's just emotionally.
Whether you have to answer yes to that question on a job application, I do not know.
I suppose the theory is that being locked up as a teenager would dissuade you from a life of crime. I imagine in practice being locked up in this way is considered something of a rite of passage and exposes the more amateur criminals to more experienced ones.
But if being detained as a juvenile has no adverse effect on educational or employment prospects as an adult, I can't quite see what the lifelong impact of this bias is.
Does being locked up dissuade adults from continuing their lives of crime? I'm sure it does for some, but the recidivism rates for adults are not encouraging.
As far as rites of passage are concerned, I'm sure that is a function of one's community and who one's adult role models are growing up.
But I can't see how being locked up at any age, couldn't have an adverse impact on education and employment. The societal bias against those who have run afoul of the law, to say nothing of the impact on one emotionally, I'm sure is significant.
I imagine that is at least part of the lifelong impact.
Post a Comment