San Quentin News

Written By Incarcerated - Advancing Social Justice

Re:store:

by

By Rebecca Weiker, Re:Store Justice Program Director

In November 2019 I traveled with over one hundred members of my Jewish congregation to Montgomery Alabama on a pilgrimage to two remarkable institutions created by the Equal Justice Initiative, a justice organization created by Bryan Stevenson over thirty years ago. (You might be familiar with Mr. Stevenson as the attorney who argued history-making juvenile justice cases before the US Supreme Court, including Miller vs. Alabama, which held that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional).

We went on this journey together because we understand that as Jews, as Americans, and as human beings, we must acknowledge and respond to a part of our history that has for too long been more hidden than visible in our public discourse.

Raise The Age law to focus on teens sentenced as adults

by

By Emily Nonko, Contributing Writer

Until this year, New York and North Carolina, were the only states that prosecuted all youth as adults once they turned 16. The Raise the Age law, which went into full effect in New York in October, has raised the age of criminal responsibility to 18.

The law is set to change thousands of lives: before Raise The Age passed, every year nearly 28,000 16- and 17-year-olds faced possible prosecution as adults in criminal court. But the law is not retroactive, so the change doesn’t extend to those most impacted by adult prosecution for youths. Those sentenced as adults when they were 16 and 17 will not see any change to the status of their sentence.

Dontie Mitchell, now incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Comstock, NY, is one such person. Mitchell was a first time felony offender at age 17, sentenced to 35 to 70 years in prison. Now 39, he has spent over half his life incarcerated for a robbery during which, he says, no one was hurt.

“The Raise the Age law says that at a certain age, you’re not as culpable as older people,” he said. “My life story fits that category.” Indeed, momentum for Raise the Age came after research into brain development revealed the human brain is not fully formed until 25. Mitchell added he had a turbulent childhood in foster homes and a homeless shelter before committing his crime.

He recalled fears as a teenager entering the adult prison system and the lack of age-sensitive rehabilitation for youth offenders. Years later, as Raise the Age took shape, “there wasn’t enough input from the real-life people affected,” he said. “Amnesty should be given to youth offenders … that is a blind spot of the law.”

Mitchell mentors youth offenders already in the adult system, like Austin Parker, 20, and Alvin Marrero, 19. When Parker was 17 he entered a segregated juvenile unit within Coxsackie Correctional Facility, in Coxsackie, NY, then transferred into an adult facility on his 18th birthday. Prior to Raise the Age, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo separated youths from adults within adult prisons in 2015, to offer them “a better chance at turning their lives around and becoming productive members of society,” he said in a statement

Parker didn’t find those opportunities in the juvenile unit. “No one really paid attention to what we were doing,” he said. “I was not prepared mentally or socially to enter [the adult system].”

Marrero, now incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility in Romulus, NY, entered the system at age 16 and is now 19. “This is a violent environment,” he said. “Being young, I’m a small person, and you’ve gotta stick up for yourself.”

This year, all 16 and 17-year olds were moved out of adult facilities in New York City and State — but nothing has changed for Mitchell, Parker or Marrero.

In the political push-and-pull of criminal justice reform, retroactivity is a complicated subject, said Julia Davis, director of youth justice and child welfare at the Children’s Defense Fund -New York. The closest thing New York offers to retroactive reform is the opportunity for some past offenders, crime free for 10 years since the end of their sentence, to apply for clemency.

Davis said the next few years will be dedicated to Raise the Age implementation — transferring 16- and 17-year-old offenders into family court — as well as “collecting information that we can use for future reform.” Advocate’s goals for 2020 include closing the adolescent offender facilities within state prisons, ending solitary confinement for youth — part of a larger movement to end solitary confinement across New York prisons — and ending prosecution of children under 12.

Mitchell, meanwhile, continues to speak out about youth still trapped in the adult system. While he has earned public support of a “Free Dontie Mitchell” campaign, his commutation applications to Governor Cuomo have gone unanswered.

“For the bill not to be retroactive is not only shortsighted but unjust,” he said. “Cuomo keeps saying New York should be a ‘progressive beacon for the nation’ — then we can start by giving justice to our disadvantaged youth.”

Oakland Police Chief delivers apology at SQ Barbershop Forum

by

Oakland Police Department’s Police Chief Jane Kirkpatrick with KTVU Fox 2’s Paul Chambers
Oakland Police Department’s Police Chief Jane Kirkpatrick with KTVU Fox 2’s Paul Chambers

Oakland Police Chief Jane Kirkpatrick delivered an encouraging message of respect, hope and an apology for law enforcement misdeeds to more than 200 San Quentin prisoners looking forward to freedom.

“We have a future and hope together,” Kirkpatrick said. “You will be given an opportunity for restoration and you will be welcomed home.

“When you come home, you will be home and you will have a police department that, as long as I am their chief, will address you with respect by your name.”

Lt. Bobby Hookfin, a native of Oakland, talked about the “historic mistrust” between the community and the police — mistrust rooted in “enforcing unjust laws.”

Participant Arthur Jackson speaking with a District Attorney
Participant Arthur Jackson speaking with a District Attorney

“We know that — but we’re establishing trust across the nation,” Hookfin said. “We want to recognize that there’s no finish line to public trust. It doesn’t end here, once you’re released, it continues to build to make our community better – did you hear, our community better.”

Kirkpatrick and Hookfin spoke July 26 at the second Barbershop Dialogue held at San Quentin. There have been more than a dozen dialogues held in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Barbershop Dialogues came about after a BART police officer killed Oscar Grant on New Year’s Eve, 2009.

One of those attending was Jack Bryson, whose two sons were with Grant when he was shot. Bryson said he wanted to take action about the strained relationship between the police and the Bay Area community. He teamed up with Oakland police officers Captain Michael Carroll and Hookfin to provide spaces for conversations about how policing affect communities.

A couple of years into the dialogues, television reporter Paul Chambers (KTVU) began airing the meetings. District attorneys, police officers, criminal justice reform advocates, formerly incarcerated, as well as incarcerated individuals, sat together and talked.

“It is my great honor to be here and thank each of you,” Kirkpatrick told the audience. She turned to Bryson, adding, “Jack, on behalf of police, I want to say I’m sorry and I want your forgiveness.” There was immediately a hush, followed by a collective, “Wow!”

Jack Bryson with formerly incarcerated Donald “DC” Barlow
Jack Bryson with formerly incarcerated Donald “DC” Barlow

Chambers asked Kirkpatrick why she apologized to Jack and told the prison- ers they would be welcomed home.

“We have caused some hurt and harm,” Kirkpatrick said. “Everybody in this room has hurt someone. I don’t want to forget that there are victims that we hurt and we need to learn to say we’re sorry. Then we need to make amends through actions and not cheap words. Many of you have never heard, ‘We’re sorry.’ It matters. That’s why it’s important.”

Several San Quentin prisoners responded to Kirkpatrick’s apology.

“I had no respect for law enforcement until that lady got up there and said what she said,” Troy “Talib” Young said. “At 7-years-old, I watched my father being beat up by LAPD. Her apology changed my life.”

Timothy Hicks said, “I’m from Oakland. To know that she’s the chief of Oakland, my community, and to get a verbal apology – to have been harmed – to hear that from someone of such high ranking is humbling.”

Paul Salseda commented, “That was very profound because you can’t begin a healing process without an apology. We can’t even begin to move forward in our lives until we come to some type of repentance in our hearts and say ‘I’m sorry’ to our communities, our families. For someone at the top to express that is huge. We have the chief to say that and say when you come home; we have a spot for you in the community.”

Kevin Neang gave an apol- ogy to the victims of his crime and all the people that he hurt.

“It’s not the title that made it powerful,” Neang said. “She removed the chief label and just reminded us that we’re all human. The whole world — the system — wants us to be accountable and to hold your- self accountable; you have to see yourself as a human.”

Kirkpatrick responded, “My heart and soul is to heal all of us together. I do recog- nize that I’m in a chapel and I want us to have a future and hope. I want to be a part of the change.”

She added, “I know a fake. I can smell them from afar. I have no time or energy for cheap talk. We need to heal. Thank you, Kevin, for saying, ‘I’m sorry.’”

working with returned residents through Developing Impacted Lives (DIL).” She said she would accept suggestions from “anywhere and anyone” that would help pre- vent the youth from going to prison.

Benoit said he tells incarcerated youngsters who are struggling, “There’s a differ- ent path and a different way. You don’t have to wait; check out SQUIRES and KidCAT.”

Chambers asked, “What about the hard-headed kids. How could you get in their head?”

Benoit responded, “The only people who talked to me then were still doing wrong. So, the real issue is getting them talking to former or incarcerated people.”

Kenneth Vernon, 47, proposed teaching young people “emotional intelligence.”

He said he came to prison at age 23.

“At that time, nothing would have impacted my choice,” Vernon said.

He said emotional intelligence allows individuals to “recognize what you’re feeling in your body. If I would have had something like that in school, it would have been a great help.”

Also present was former San Quentin News staffer Miguel Quezada, who paroled almost two years ago.

“It’s going to get great out there,” said Quezada to the audience that included several men who did time with him. “It’s important for people to hear your voices and understand what you’re doing to get out of here.”

After Chambers observed there were “a lot of district attorneys in here,” the conversa- tion shifted to preventing the youth from coming to prison.

Isaiah Caldwell, a father of three, asked if someone like him, who is serving a life sentence, could collaborate with programs geared to serving at-risk youth.

“Can we talk to the youth and tell them what they’re facing?” Caldwell asked. “They would listen to us because our fathers were missing, too — they’ll listen to us.”

Troy Young got up again to talk about being a reformed gang member from Los Ange- les. He offered his life experience to share the realities of prison.

“We have to stop them out there,” Young said. He turned to the district attorneys and asked,“How can we work together?”

Jill Klinge, a top district attorney for Alameda County said, “In our office, we’re working with returned residents through Developing Impacted Lives (DIL).” She said she would accept suggestions from “anywhere and anyone” that would help prevent the youth from going to prison.

Kling spoke about SQUIRES, a program where troubled youth come into San Quentin for candid conversations and intense listening sessions with selected prisoners.

“But, the first thing is getting yourself established, and then come to us to help.” Klinge said to the men.

Some prisoners asked the district attorneys about pending legislation that would encourage younger prisoners to take an active role in rehabilitation.

“This bill can change the perspective from despair to hope,” said Romeo Baca about the California Senate Bill, which would give prison time reduction to individuals who committed their crime at a young age.

Baca said he came to prison at age 16.

“It was very frightening, but I acted like it wasn’t,” Baca said. “KidCAT helped me deal with prison. When you give kids opportunities, they won’t let you down.”

Participants of the Barbershop Forum on the Garden Chapel Courtyard after the event
Participants of the Barbershop Forum on the Garden Chapel Courtyard after the event

KidCAT (Creating Awareness Together) is a support community for men who committed their crimes at a young age, often as teenagers, and sentenced as adults to life terms. The group’s mission is to inspire humanity through education, mentorship and restorative practices.

Chase Benoit said he came to prison at age 19.

Benoit said he tells incarcerated youngsters who are struggling, “There’s a differ- ent path and a different way. You don’t have to wait; check out SQUIRES and KidCAT.”

Chambers asked, “What about the hard-headed kids. How could you get in their head?”

Benoit responded, “The only people who talked to me then were still doing wrong. So, the real issue is getting them talking to former or incarcerated people.”

Kenneth Vernon, 47, proposed teaching young people “emotional intelligence.”

He said he came to prison at age 23.

“At that time, nothing would have impacted my choice,” Vernon said.

He said emotional intelligence allows individuals to “recognize what you’re feel- ing in your body. If I would have had something like that in school, it would have been a great help.”

Also present was former San Quentin News staffer Miguel Quezada, who paroled almost two years ago.

“It’s going to get great out there,” said Quezada to the audience that included several men who did time with him. “It’s important for people to hear your voices and understand what you’re doing to get out of here.”

Illinois offers young offenders hope

by

Most young adults who are serving long-term sentences can apply for parole in Illinois under a new law.

“The historic legislation will create a long-awaited and vital new parole system for youth facing long sentences,” said Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

The measure allows the granting of discretionary pa- role for people who commit- ted a crime before the age of 21, The Chicago Tribune reported April 3.

“Everybody deserves a second chance, but especially our youth. In the juvenile justice system, our youth often get their rights trod upon,” said former public defender Lindsay Parkhurst.

After 10 years, many youth offenders can petition the Illinois Prisoner Review Board for parole consideration. Victims, witnesses and others will be given the opportunity to testify to the parole board.

Those serving life sentences or convicted of predatory criminal assault on a child will not be eligible. Those convicted of first-degree murder or aggravated criminal sexual assault will be eligible for review after 20 years.
“I believe in redemption.

I believe in rehabilitation,” said Barbara Flynn Currie, the former state representative who sponsored the bill. The bill was the final piece of legislation to be passed in Currie’s 40 years as a lawmaker.

Pritzker has also created a Justice, Equity and Opportunity Initiative by power of an executive order.

The initiative will conduct research and advocate for more laws with a restorative justice model to make rehabilitation the priority over incarceration and punishment.

Once facing a lifetime behind bars, some now offered a chance at freedom

by

Juveniles sentenced to die in California prisons now have the chance to go home—if they can prove they have rehabilitated.

To help them achieve that goal, two attorneys are providing workshops to help juvenile offenders prepare for the Board of Parole Hearings that will determine their fate.

“(Elizabeth) Calvin and (Heidi) Rummel are working to help those still behind bars prepare for parole hearings that they never expected to have.” That is why the pair went to Corcoran in September and were at Kern Valley State Prison a few weeks earlier, The Nation reports.

“At Corcoran they met with three separate groups of inmates throughout the day. Each inmate was given the chance to speak individually with a law student and talk informally with…two other former juveniles (sentenced to life without parole (JL-WOP).”

One of those former juvenile LWOPs in attendance was Joel Aguilar, 41, who was released in December 2015. Aguilar is one of only 14 California Juvenile LWOPs who’ve been released since Senate Bill 9 was passed in 2013.

Addressing the inmates at the workshop, Aguilar said, “I know what it is to walk around that track thinking that this is where you’re going to die. You know what? It’s over. You guys are coming home.”

Although there is reason for optimism, to be actually released from prison by the parole board is not guaranteed.

“Juvenile LWOPs are at a distinct disadvantage; most are ill prepared for both parole-board hearings and life outside,” The Nation reported.

One of the main criteria by the Board to find someone suitable for parole is a demonstration of rehabilitation by participating in programs. However this is nearly impossible for most inmates serving LWOP.

“Those of us who are LWOPs are considered the worst of the worst, hopeless and beyond redemption, which is why we are not a priority in rehabilitation since we have no parole,” said Timothy L. Bludworth, LWOP inmate at Tehachapi State Prison.

“I pray something will change.”

Despite the challenges juvenile LWOPs face in obtain- ing programs for rehabilitation, change is still possible.

“My mistakes were the constant finger-pointing and blatant refusal of any responsibility for my actions,” Bludworth said.

“I’m so sorry to my victims for the pain and harm I have caused them.”

Regardless of the positive changes Juvenile LWOPs may be able to demonstrate, some victim advocates do not want them to be paroled.

One is Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, whose sister and brother-in-law and the couple’s unborn child were murdered.

For years, Bishop-Jenkins advocated against the death penalty. She said she was comfortable doing so because she knew her sister’s killer would never get out. When she learned he might one day be released she was shocked.

“I believe that there are a few very dangerous people in this world and that age has nothing to do with that dangerous aspect,” said Bishop-Jenkins, who is also leader of National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers.

The Nation article noted, however, that according to a 2008 Human Rights Watch report, as many as 45 percent of California’s juvenile LWOPS had not killed anyone. Often they were tried as co-defendants with adult offenders and received longer sentences.

While the obstacles for a juvenile LWOP to be found suitable for parole are considerable, there are still things lifers can do to improve their chances.

At the mock hearing, Rummel posed several questions to be answered. What did you do? Why did you do it? How did you change? The questions are easy, she said, but the answers are not. “There were so many who…couldn’t let themselves believe that there was a chance they were going to go home,” Rummel said. “But (they) got to do this (and) start believing.” Currently there are about 300 juveniles serving life without parole in California.

Elizabeth Calvin is a senior advocate in the Children’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch. Heidi Rummel is the co-director of the Post-Conviction Justice Project at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

Both women also helped to spearhead the vast majority of juvenile justice reform legislation in California over the past decade.

Jóvenes encarcelados encaran discriminación en sentencias

by

Las herramientas para evaluar – el riesgo que representan los ofensores fueron diseñadas para disminuir prejuicio a la hora de dictar una sentencia, sin embargo podrían estar causando discriminación contra los infractores juveniles, reporta Wendy Sawyer del Prison Policy Initiative.

Esta evaluación toma en consideración muchos factores que pueden incrementar el riesgo de estas personas, los cuales incluyen antecedentes criminales y la edad. Los jueces utilizan estas herramientas para dictar sentencia. Las audiencias de libertad condicional confían en ellas para determinar la elegibilidad de los infractores.

Megan T. Stevenson y Christopher Slobogin descubrieron que “los ofensores de 18 años obtienen calificaciones que en promedio son dos veces más altas que los ofensores de 40 años”.

Los jóvenes a menudo reciben un calificación que refleja “alto riesgo” sin tomar en consideración la diferencia entre su desarrollo en relación a los adultos.

Stevenson y Slobogin encontraron que muchos jueces no conocían todos los factores que fueron considerados en las evaluaciones de los jóvenes y a menudo clasificaron de alto riesgo a las personas sin una explicación sobre cómo llegaron a esa conclusión.

Ese desconocimiento crea serias implicaciones legales y éticas y también ocasiona que los jueces cometan la misma clase de errores que estas herramientas deberían prevenir.

La juventud es una “espada de doble filo”, apuntan Stevenson y Slobogin. Los infractores juveniles son catalogados menos culpables, pero también son considera- dos de alto riesgo para cometer actos de violencia. A lo largo de la nación, los jueces a menudo atribuyen a los ofensores juveniles menor culpabilidad al sentenciarlos. Sin embargo, los métodos que se utilizan para determinar el nivel de riego no consideran este aspecto.

Stevenson y Slobogin analizaron el COMPAS Violent Recidivism Score (VRRS), una de las principales herramientas de evaluación. Los resultados indican que “la edad constituye aproximadamente el 60% del resultado de la examinación”.

El estudio examinó otros siete algoritmos de la evaluación y descubrió que cada uno de ellos considera la juventud igual o más importante que los antecedentes criminales al determinar el riesgo de los infractores jóvenes. Esto ocasiona que el juez perciba el carácter del ofensor de una manera injusta, lo cual influye la sentencia impuesta.

Una encuesta reciente a los jueces de Virginia, reveló que únicamente el 29% tenían “conocimiento pleno” de las herramientas que estaban utilizando, mientras el 22% no tenían “conocimiento” o únicamente “un poco de conocimiento”. En Virginia, los resultados de la evaluación del riesgo de los ofensores vienen con una recomendación de sentencia, reportó Sawyer.

Las evaluaciones para determinar el riesgo se complican aún más por los factores agravantes y mitigantes, tales como trastornos por el abuso de sustancias, enfermedades mentales y desventajas socioeconómicas.

Los jueces y las comisiones de libertad condicional pueden ejercer discreción al realizar recomendaciones, pero como Stevenson y Slobogin señalan, no puedes contrarrestar la influencia negativa que la etiqueta de “alto riesgo” tendrá en los ofensores.

Kid CAT Chairman Si Dang’s 2019 youth address

by

For many of us who are incarcerated, the ultimate dream is freedom. The question of whether we will achieve that dream, however, often lies in our pursuit of it. 

Kid CAT members

My name is Si Dang, and I am the new chairman of Kid CAT. Over the last 22 years, I have pursued my freedom in a variety of ways, many of them dysfunctional and leading me right back to where I started: without freedom and with no meaningful change in who I was. 

It was not until six years ago that I finally tapped into my courage and begin facing my personal issues, which ultimately lead me on the road towards my pursuit of freedom and the change I was after. 

It is now my purpose as the new leader of Kid CAT to bring that change and pursuit of freedom to all of our members and the youth, which we represent. 

It is my hope that I might serve Kid CAT with a spirit of accountability and change that inspires each of us to find the courage to not only pursue our most important dreams, but achieve them.

In fact, it is with this spirit in mind that I would like to thank our out-going chairman, Charlie Spence, for his many years of service, leadership, and mentorship to our organization and members. 

It is under Charlie’s guidance that our organization has thrived and Kid CAT successfully achieved many of its goals and objectives in 2018. 

For example, in 2018, Kid CAT officially implemented the Power Source curriculum in its Youth Offender Program (YOP) “BE-IT.” At the same time our First-Step Childhood Development curriculum graduated over 40 individuals and has now entered into a new cycle with new participants. 

We also helped raised over $15,000 for Project Avary, and raised close to a $1,000 in support of The Beat Within program through our Foodsale.

Additionally, in October we hosted our annual banquet to raise awareness of the “forgotten” voices of youth, highlighting youth violence and the power of restorative justice to heal. 

Both inside and outside guests shared their personal stories while representatives from the Huckleberry House, Project Avary, The Beat Within and long-time Kid CAT volunteer, Bev Shelby, spoke about the importance of advocacy and volunteerism within our communities and institutions. 

In 2018, five Kid CAT members who served life sentences paroled, two of which were commuted by the Governor. They are all now being productive members of their communities. 

Additionally, this past Thanksgiving, five more of our Kid CAT members had their life sentences commuted by the Governor, bringing the total to seven commutations. 

With the departure of our members, we invited five new faces into Kid CAT all of who are (YOP) inmates. All of who have shown tremendous potential and willingness to carry on Kid CAT’s mission of creating awareness and community service. 

Going into 2019, we are excited to get to work. Some of our goals include expanding our charity work with the Huckleberry House, Avary Project and The Beat Within.

With our partners, we hope to bring greater awareness to the issues of homelessness, youth with incarcerated parents, and the overall challenges that youth offenders face in the juvenile justice system. 

Additionally, it is our organization’s goal to expand the accessibility of Kid CAT Speaks page in the San Quentin News as a platform for more youth offenders to share their voices and send messages of hope and gratitude.

We also plan to increase accessibility of our Childhood Development curriculum to more incarcerated individuals in other prisons.

Since making our Childhood Development curriculum available, three of our paroled Kid CAT members hosted an orientation of the curriculum at Lancaster State Prison. We also held a joint training with volunteers from Tracy State Prison who will be starting a Kid CAT curriculum there. 

It is also our goal to advocate for provisions that would allow youth offenders to earn milestone and RAC credits toward their youth offender date as opposed to their minimum eligible parole date (MEPD). 

Throughout the new year, our organization will be working toward becoming more transparent in our individual and collective efforts to uphold the integrity of our goals and vision. 

It is our objective to begin to hold each other more accountable for our actions while administering higher standards of professionalism within the organization. 

It is our hope that transparency and accountability will translate into a stronger group and individual commitment in supporting and advocating for all youth offenders. 

In closing, this year, Kid CAT would like to inspire everyone to pursue their dreams and find the courage to face the new challenges that may stand in their way. There is nothing that one cannot achieve without hard work. 

We encourage all of you to take advantage of new opportunities and work to create meaningful change in your lives and, in the process, make your dreams a reality. 

“All our dreams can come true – if we have the courage to pursue them.”-Walt Disney

Risk assessment tools designed against youth offenders

by

Risk assessment tools designed to decrease prejudice in sentencing may be causing discrimination toward youth offenders, reports Wendy Sawyer for the Prison Policy Initiative.

These risk assessment tools score people based on many factors that can add to risk, including criminal history and age. Judges use them when sentencing, and parole boards rely on them to determine parole suitability.

“Eighteen-year-old defendants have risk scores that are, on average, twice as high as 40-year-old defendants,” law professors Megan T. Stevenson and Christopher Slobogin found.

Juveniles are often given a score of “high-risk,” with no regard to their developmental difference from adults. 

In a recent academic paper by Stevenson and Slobogin, they determined that many judges did not know all the factors that went into these risk assessment algorithms and often receive classifications of risk without an explanation about what led to the determination. 

This raises serious ethical and legal implications when judges who use these assessment tools don’t fully understand them. They’re also causing judges to make the same sort of discriminatory errors that the tools are supposed to prevent. 

Youth is a “double-edged sword,” according to Stevenson and Slobogin, as youth offenders are seen as less culpable, but they are also seen as having a higher risk of violence. Judges across the nation often consider the diminished culpability of juvenile defendants when sentencing them, but risk assessment tools don’t.

Stevenson and Slobogin analyzed the COMPAS Violent Recidivism Risk Score (VRRS), one of the leading risk assessment tools. They found that “roughly 60 percent of the risk score it produces is attributable to age.” 

The study examined seven other risk assessment algorithms and found that each of them considers youth to be equal or more important than criminal history in determining risk. This causes a judge’s perception of the defendant’s character to be unfairly affected, which also impacts sentencing.

In a recent survey of Virginia judges, only 29 percent of them were found to be “very familiar” with the risk assessment tool they were using, while 22 percent were either “unfamiliar” or only “slightly familiar” with it. In Virginia, risk assessment scores come with sentencing recommendations, Sawyer reports.

Risk assessments are further complicated by both mitigating and aggravating factors such as substance use disorders, mental illness and socioeconomic disadvantages.

Judges and parole boards can exercise discretion when making determinations, but, as Stevenson and Slobogin point out, you can’t undo the negative influence that a “high-risk” label will have .

Kid CAT curriculum now available

by

Attention Readers: Kid CAT Childhood development curriculum and facilitator manual is now available. 

If you are interested in creating a Kid CAT branch/youth offender support group at your institution, please have your sponsor/volunteer or community partnership manager contact Kid CAT Speaks c/o San Quentin News, 1 Main Street, San Quentin, CA 94964 for a copy of our curriculum and facilitator’s manual.

The curriculum’s objective is to help participants address the root causes of criminal thinking, childhood trauma and violent behavior. It accomplishes this by helping participants explore three phases of their lives:

Past (childhood to pre-conviction)

Present (current incarceration) 

Future (post-release). 

The 26-week curriculum is broken into eight modules: 

Masculinity 

Self-identity

Identifying emotions

Consequences 

Communication

Environmental influences

Compassion

Empathy and forgiveness

A typical session consists of written assignments, self-exploration, lectures and group discussion.

CA court orders new board hearing for youth offender William Palmer

by

A California State Court of Appeal ruled that the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) denied parole without considering the youth of William Palmer, who committed kidnapping for robbery as a juvenile. The court ordered the board to give Palmer a new parole hearing and consider his age at the time of the crime.

“Considering the Board’s statutory obligation to give “great weight” to those (youth) factors, its decision to find Palmer unsuitable for release, despite the presence of almost all the variables the Board itself has deemed indicative of statutory youth offender factors, cannot stand.” (First Appellate District, Division Two of the Court of Appeal of California. In re Palmer 27 Cal.App.5th 120)

The youth offender laws requires the Board to presume a person who committed their crime when they were under 26 years old suitable for release “unless there is substantial evidence” the youth offender remains an unreasonable risk to public safety.

In 1988, Palmer, a 17-year-old high school dropout pled guilty to kidnapping for robbery and was sentenced as an adult to 15 years to life with the possibility of parole. He appeared before the Board 10 times, without success. 

In June of 2015, Palmer received a five-year parole denial as a result of two rule violations he received for using an illegal cell phone in 2012 to tell his sister their mother died and giving a T-shirt to his girlfriend during a visit in 2014, court records show.

Board, in making their determination, did not give “great weight” to the fact Palmer committed his crime when he was 17 years old and the changes he has made since.

The First Appellate District found that denying Palmer youth offender parole was arbitrary and capricious because the Board did not give “great weight” to the statutory youth factors and the Board did not explain why Palmer’s two rule violations were substantial evidence that outweighed all of his other positive achievements that he had accomplished while incarcerated.

During his incarceration, Palmer obtained his high school diploma, earned an Associate in Arts degree, joined Arts in Corrections and learned how to paint; he sold some of his artwork and painted three murals on the prison grounds. He also participated in a range of self-help programs, including substance abuse and victim impact, the Long-Term Offender Pilot Program, courses on conflict resolution and anger management, faith-based self-improvement programs, Narcotics Anonymous, Criminal Gangs and Violence Prevention Program; tutored other youth offenders; volunteered as an inmate peer health educator; and participated in the Visiting Beautification Project. Palmer also had solid parole plans, letters of support from family, friends, prison staff and correctional officers, and community volunteers. 

The court noted that the statutory “great weight” provision of the youth factors “diminishes the Board’s discretion to determine the basis upon which suitability or unsuitability for release may be determined.”

UPDATE: On January 16, 2019, as this article was going to print, the California Supreme Court granted review in In re Palmer, Case Number S252145 and ordered that the opinion filed September 13, 2018 which appears at 27 Cal.App.5th 120 be de-published. Therefore, this case may not be cited for precedence. The questions presented on review may take up to a year to decide. 

Translate »