Transcript Navigating Recent Amendments to Utah's Serious Youth

Navigating Recent
Amendments to Utah's
Serious Youth Offender
Statute 78A-6-702
UACDL 2014 Juvenile Law Seminar
Andrea Martinez
Patrick Corum
HB 185 2014 JUVENILE DETENTION
FACILITIES AMENDMENTS
 78A-6-702(6)
At the time the minor is bound over to
the district court, the juvenile court
shall make the initial determination
on where the minor shall be held.
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES
AMENDMENTS
 78A-6-702(7)
The juvenile court shall consider the
following when determining where the
minor shall be held until the time of
trial:
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES
AMENDMENTS
78A-6-702(7)
(a) the age of the minor;
(b) the nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the alleged offense;
(c) the minor's history of prior criminal acts;
(d) whether detention in a juvenile detention facility will adequately serve the need for
community protection pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings;
(e) whether the minor's placement in a juvenile detention facility will negatively impact the
functioning of the facility by compromising the goals of the facility to maintain a safe,
positive, and secure environment for all minors within the facility;
(f) the relative ability of the facility to meet the needs of the minor and protect the public;
(g) whether the minor presents an imminent risk of harm to the minor or others within the
facility;
(h) the physical maturity of the minor;
(i) the current mental state of the minor as evidenced by relevant mental health or psychological
assessments or screenings that are made available to the court; and
(j) any other factors the court considers relevant.
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES
AMENDMENTS
78A-6-702(8)
If a minor is ordered to a juvenile detention facility
under Subsection (7), the minor shall remain in the
facility until released by a district court judge, or if
convicted, until sentencing.
78A-6-702(9)
A minor held in a juvenile detention facility under this
section shall have the same right to bail as any other
criminal defendant.
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES
AMENDMENTS
78A-6-702 (10)
If the minor ordered to a juvenile detention facility under
Subsection (7) attains the age of 18 years, the minor shall
be transferred within 30 days to an adult jail until released
by the district court judge, or if convicted, until sentencing.
78A-6-702 (11)
A minor 16 years of age or older whose conduct or condition
endangers the safety or welfare of others in the juvenile detention
facility may, by court order that specifies the reasons, be detained
in another place of pretrial confinement considered appropriate
by the court, including jail or other place of confinement for
adults.
78A-6-702 (12)
The district court may reconsider the decision on where the
minor will be held pursuant to Subsection (6).
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES
AMENDMENTS
Amendments also apply to Certification cases under UCA
78A-6-703
HB 105 2013 SERIOUS YOUTH OFFENDER
AMENDMENTS
78A-6-702(3)
(b) If the juvenile court judge finds the state has met its
burden under this Subsection (3), the court shall order that
the defendant be bound over and held to answer in the
district court in the same manner as an adult unless the
juvenile court judge finds that all of the following conditions
exist: it would be contrary to the best interest of the
minor and to the public to bind over the defendant to
the jurisdiction of the district court.
Retention Factors
Overarching retention factor : Best Interests
of Minor AND Public
These interests are NOT mutually exclusive
Retention Factors
(c) In making the bind over determination, the judge shall
consider only the following:
(i) whether the minor has not been previously
adjudicated delinquent for an offense involving the use of a
dangerous weapon which would be a felony if committed by
an adult;
Retention Factor #2
(ii) that if the offense was committed with
one or more other persons, whether the
minor appears to have a greater or lesser
degree of culpability than the codefendants;
and
Retention Factor #3
(iii) that the extent to which the minor's
role in the offense was not committed in a
violent, aggressive, or premeditated
manner.;
Retention Factor #4
(iv) the number and nature of the
minor's prior adjudications in the
juvenile court; and
Retention Factor #5
(v) whether public safety is better
served by adjudicating the minor in the
juvenile court or in the district court.
Retention Hearing Procedure
(3)(d) Once the state has met its burden
under Subsection (3)(a) as to a showing of
probable cause, the defendant shall have
the burden of going forward and presenting
evidence that in light of the considerations
listed in Subsection (3)(c), it would be
contrary to the best interest of the
minor and the best interests of the
public to bind the defendant over to the
jurisdiction of the district court.
Retention Hearing Burden of Proof
(3)(e) If the juvenile court judge finds by
clear and convincing evidence that it would
be contrary to the best interest of the
minor and the best interests of the
public to bind the defendant over to the
jurisdiction of the district court, the
court shall so state in its findings and order
the minor held for trial as a minor and shall
proceed upon the information as though it
were a juvenile petition.
HB 105 Legislative History
 Utah Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on H.B. 105
3/5/2013
 http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id
=3018&meta_id=80873
 Utah House Judiciary Standing Committee Hearing on
H.B. 105 on 2/22/2013
 http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id
=2796&meta_id=76536
HB 105 Legislative History
Jacey Skinner (then Chair of the Utah Sentencing Commission)
the original intent of the SYO statute was to transfer the “worst of
the worst” juvenile offenders and those that had “exhausted the
resources of the Juvenile Justice System.”
Paul Boyden (SWAP)
original intent of SYO statute was to identify those cases
which are “so violent and are so shocking to the
conscience of the community” that “these kids” simply
must be “tried as adults because of the horrendous things
that they’ve done.”
V.L. Snow (sponsor of HB 105)
“clearly” there were some crimes that are so “egregious
and heinous” that transfer is required
HB 105 Legislative History
Old SYO statute NOT identifying those cases
The large majority of cases sent to adult court received
probation
Rehabilitation was not the purpose of sending juveniles to
adult court – the only legitimate purpose of sending
juveniles to adult court is retribution and/or long-term
confinement.
HB 105 Legislative History
 If a case warranted or received probation, then the only appropriate
place to do that is in juvenile court because the juvenile court
provides absolutely necessary services that are just not available in
adult court.
 Simply stated, the adult court system and adult correctional
systems are not equipped to deal with juveniles.
 The court is placing them on probation, starting them out with a
serious felony offense, and essentially “sending them on their way.”
As a result, the chances of success on adult probation are dismal for
juveniles, there is a high risk of reoffending, and recidivism is
actually increased by transferring cases into the adult court.
 As stated succinctly by Jacey Skinner “they do not do well.”
 Not surprisingly, juveniles who are transferred to adult court,
“particularly for violent offenses,” reoffend “sooner and more
frequently than those who are similarly situated and handled in the
juvenile court system.”
HB 105 Legislative History
 In contrast, Susan Burke, Director of Juvenile Justice Services
outlined for the Legislature all of the various services that are
available to the juvenile court and not the adult court judges.
 Focusing on a Comprehensive Risks and Needs Assessment,
treatment and intervention requirements are developed that
also take into account public safety and accountability.
 All of these treatments are “developmentally appropriate” and
“focus on education.”
 Also, the juvenile’s “mental health needs” and “cognitive
deficits” are identified and treated – in a wide range of facilities
that deal specifically with substance abuse treatment,
behavioral disorders, sex offender treatment, or truly any other
kind of “specialized treatment services” identified.
Retention Hearing or Mini-Certification
 Factors #1 – 3 are fairly straightforward
 Previous adjudication involving weapon
 Degree of culpability if co-defendants
 Extent to which crime committed in violent,
aggressive, or premeditated manner
Retention Hearing or Mini-Certification
 Factor #4 is where the specialized knowledge comes into
play: the number and nature of the minor's prior
adjudications in the juvenile court
 Prior charges?
 Prior probation?
 What services received in juvenile court?
Retention Hearing or Mini-Certification
 Factor #5 gets much more complicated - whether public
safety is better served by adjudicating the minor in the
juvenile court or in the district court.
 Public Safety is almost always better served by
retention!!
Public Safety
 Studies show that adolescents are more likely to engage
in risky behavior than their adult counterparts.
Laurence Steinberg, The influence of neuroscience on US
Supreme Court decisions about adolescents’ criminal
culpability, NATURE R. NEUROSCIENCE, 513 (2013)
 However, , this type of risky behavior decreases with
age. Id.
 Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that “more than
90% of all juvenile offenders desist from crime by their
mid-20s.” Id. at 516.
 That number decreases, however, for youth punished as
adults.
Public Safety
 Six large-scale studies have consistently found
higher recidivism rates for juveniles convicted in
adult courts than similar offenders who were tried
in juvenile courts. Richard E. Redding, Juvenile
Transfer Laws: An effective Deterrent to
Delinquency?, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2
(June, 2010)
Public Safety
 In one study, 15- and 16-year-old youths charged with
robbery and burglary in New York City were compared
others youths charged with the same crime in
demographically similar areas of New Jersey. Elizabeth
Scott & Laurence Steinberg, Social Welfare and Fairness
in Juvenile Crime Regulation, 71 La. L. Rev. 35, 64
(2010)
 New York automatically transferred these minors to adult
court, New Jersey did not - juveniles convicted and
sentenced for robbery in New York (the adult system)
reoffended sooner and at a higher rate than those who
stayed in the juvenile system in New Jersey
Public Safety
 Another study conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) wherein
researchers systematically reviewed all published
studies on transfer policies concluded that “the
‘use of transfer laws and strengthened transfer
policies is counterproductive to reducing juvenile
violence and enhancing public safety.’” See Exhibit
C, Ryan, Youth in the Adult Criminal System, 35
CARDOZA L. REV at 1177
Public Safety
 Similarly, a study in Florida (G, Redding, Juvenile
Transfer Laws, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN, at 5) found that:
 Overall, 49 percent of the transferred offenders reoffended,
compared with 35 percent of the retained offenders.
 For violent offenses, 24 percent of the transferred offender
reoffended, compared with 16 percent of the retained
offenders.
 For drug offenses, 11 percent of the transferred offenders
reoffended, compared with 9 percent of the retained
offenders.
 For property offenses, 14 percent of the transferred
offenders reoffended, compared with 10 percent of the
retained offenders.
Public Safety
 Utah Study??? Could show:
 the types of cases being transferred or retained
(proportionality or “worst of the worst”)
 Outcomes in adult vs. juvenile court
(recidivism, failure rates, etc)
What can Juvenile Court offer the minor?
 What does the minor need?
 What can the juvenile court offer to meet those needs?
 Expert evaluation very helpful if not essential
 Dr. Matthew Davies
[email protected]
 Dr. Rob Buttars
[email protected]
What will the adult court offer to minor?
 Probation?
 AP&P does NOT want to supervise children
 AP&P offers no specialized programming for children
 AP&P treats children on probation like adults and they
almost always FAIL
 Prison? – research what happens to children in prison
 USP does NOT want to house children
 USP houses children in Uinta 1 (super max) until they can
farm them out to a county jail BUT county jail may not be
an option for violent offenses or gang cases