September 2015

Proposed Concurrence with

>tsK::W

In June 2015, LWVNYS convention delegates approved a state board recommended program
item to conduct a post-convention concurrence with portions of >tsKJuvenile Justice
position. Concurrence is defined as agreement by League members with a position on an issue
reached by a small group of members or by another League. Based on LWVUS precedent, it is
-state
position upon which it is based. See Appendix A for more information on concurrence policy
and procedure.

Brief Overview:

Typically the criminal law treats children differently than it treats adults. New York is the only
state other than North Carolina that prosecutes ALL youth 16 years of age and older as adults.
New York is one of only two states in the country that have not adopted laws which reflect
brain development research and science which has found that the human brain is not fully
formed until the age of 26. Further, New York allows children as young as 7 years old to be
arrested and charged with acts of juvenile delinquency.

Research has shown:


and adolescents lack the ability to focus on the consequences of their behavior.
Because the adolescent brain is still developing, the character, personality traits and behavior
of adolescents are highly receptive to change; adolescents respond well to
interventions, learn to make responsible choices, and are likely to grow out of negative
or delinquent behavior.
In January of 2014 a Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice appointed by Governor
Cuomo to make recommendations on how New York could raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction
issued a Final Report in January 2015 with 38 concrete recommendations for reforming the
1

youth justice system. These recommendations are based on the acceptance of the basic
premise that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised and that young persons accused
of criminal behavior should be treated differently than adult offenders.

Based on these findings, the Governor pushed for a comprehensive legislative package in the
2015 legislative session designed to re-frame the way young people are treated by our criminal
justice system. Another proposal was also introduced in the Assembly.

The legislature approved the allocation of funds to implement the principles of the proposals,
but the legislature adjourned without passage of either proposal. Because LWVNYS lacked an
applicable position, we could not advocate for or against these proposals.

Context of existing New York State and LWVUS League Positions

In New York, we have positions that address treatment of those who are taken into the criminal
justice system but our positions do not address the concerns of the impact of the justice system
on children directly. For example, the position on Pre-Trial Procedures provides that the rights
of defendants should be protected at every stage of a criminal proceeding, including the pre-
arraignment period. This principle has particular resonance in the juvenile justice system since
for historical reasons juveniles actually possess fewer rights than adults accused of crimes.

The two positions that most closely touch upon the issues of juvenile justice are Bail and
Alternatives to Incarceration.

Finally, there is the overarching League principle that no person or group should suffer legal,
economic or administrative discrimination. (http://lwv.org/content/principles) Both the Ohio
League and the NYS Commission report have identified ways in which many juvenile justice
laws have discriminatory impacts on racial minorities.

Thus, existing positions appear to be inadequate to a thorough, considered and knowledgeable
undertaking of analysis of proposed reforms. No position addresses the core issue of the
current proposals, which is to raise the age of criminal responsibility in New York State. If we
reach concurrence with portions of the LWV Ohiosition on juvenile justice, we will be able
to have a voice in the discussion of the Raise the Age proposals.

Ohio League Studies/Action on Juvenile Justice

LWV Ohio conducted a full study and several updates on Juvenile Justice and arrived at a broad
and comprehensive Juvenile Justice position. Paramount is the principle that children under

relate to their stage of development, that the purpose of juvenile justice should be
rehabilitation, and that the legal rights of juveniles should be protected.


2


Proposed Concurrence

The LWV Ohio position is quite comprehensive and specific. (See Appendix H) for discussion of
the Ohio Studies and the complete position.) In contrast to the practice of LWVNYS, the Ohio
position details much of the suggested implementation of the position in concrete terms. Our
positions are generally phrased more broadly to allow flexibility in responding to specific
legislation as it is introduced. Thus, we are proposing a concurrence with only portions of the
Ohio position. The portions listed below will cover the specifics of the legislative packages
proposed during the last legislative session, but are flexible enough to cover future legislative
proposals.

1. Children under the age of 18 are not adults and their treatment within the juvenile
justice and criminal court system should relate to their stage of development.
2. Children should not be held in adult jails.
3. Rehabilitation is the purpose of the juvenile justice system.
4. The legal rights of children should be protected.i

If the concurrence is adopted, these principles will form our position on Juvenile Justice.

Arguments in favor of concurrence

The underlying premise of the proposed position is that children are not adults. This premise is
based on accepted scientific Ez^Z/

Over the last 15 years, an uncontroverted body of research has emerged
demonstrating that the brain does not reach maturation until early adulthood,
with certain types of adult cognitive abilities not fully developed until the mid-20s.
The differences between adolescents and adults can be categorized into three
important areas: self-regulation, particularly in emotionally charged contexts;
sensitivity to peer influence and immediate rewards; and ability to make decisions
that require an orientation toward the future.

The existence of these differences in the way children and adults think, act, and react make it
inappropriate for society to respond the anti-social behavior of children in the same way as it
responds to anti-social behavior of adults. Notably, this science was recognized and relied upon
in 2002 when LWV Ohio updated its position, demonstrating that this study was at the forefront
of up-to-date thinking on the issue.

The US Supreme Court recently considered the propriety of criminal justice responses to
actions of persons under the age of 18 in three cases. In these cases, it found that the
diminished culpability made the imposition of the death penalty on those under 18 at the time
of the criminal act and imposition of a prison term of life without the possibility for parole
unconstitutional for both non-homicide and homicide offenders, noting, in the last case, that
3

juvenile o
more amenable to rehabilitation than adults

Thus the imZ would bring New York State up-to-date
in the current thinking about - juvenile justice. The fact that New York is presently an outlier in
this regard is not controlling, but should be seriously considered in framing policy on the
treatment of young people. Adoption of this concurrence would allow LWVNYS to be part of
the conversation.

Further, the proposed position is in accordance with our position on Alternatives to
Incarceration, which promotes the utilization of alternative dispositions for criminal conduct
over a system that favors incarceration. We have, for a long time, disfavored incarceration as
the default response to criminal conduct, and have developed standards for evaluating
programs directed at rehabilitation rather than punishment as the preferred response to
criminal behavior.

Arguments against the concurrence

There are those who say that people should be punished for their criminal acts no matter what
their age. raise the age
would endanger public safety, overburden the Family Court system and cost too much.

These arguments have been heard in this state also. On April 14, 2015 Tioga County legislators
unanimously agreed that the cost of either of the two Raise the Age proposals now under
consideration would be too much for the county to handle. ii Senator Bonacic has released a
YouTube video which, while allowing for the possibility that the age should be raised for some
children who engage in minor forms of criminal conduct, opines that for those who commit
serious crimes, they should do the time, regardless of age.iii

According to a report in the Daily News, former Senate Deputy GOP leader Thomas Libous (R-
Binghamton) said he was open to the proposal but added that it was a sensitive issue for
lawmakers because of the violent nature of some youth crimes. Senator Martin Golden of
Brooklyn, another Republican and a former New York City police officer, commented ^
the most heinous crimes are committed by kids who are 16 and 17.iv

Results of Raise the Age Legislation in other states

With respect to the con arguments based on dangers to public safety and cost concerns, results
of actual experience with these laws show these fears to be unfounded. In the two states that
have most recently enacted these laws, evidence shows that this legislation does not result in
reduced public safety, and there are indications that cost savings can also be realized.

In Connecticut a study on the effect of raise the age that recidivism rates were significantly
higher for convicted youth processed in the adult system, than those who had been processed
4

through the juvenile court system. Measured by rates of recidivism, then, the reform
enhanced public safety. The results in Illinois have been the same: a report detailing the
impact of Raise the Age legislation found that there was no increase in crime and public safety
was not otherwise adversely affected.


i

http://www.lwvohio.org/assets/attachments/file/Juvenile%20Justice(1).pdf

ii

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Legislators-Raise-the-Age-campaign-will-cost-taxpayers-
299763801.html.
iii

http://www.nysenate.gov/video/2015/apr/20/senator-bonacic-discusses-raise-age-legislation.

iv

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cuomo-aims-hike-age-teens-adults-article-1.1571625

Appendix A

Concurrence policies and procedures

What concurrence is:
CONCURRENCE is defined by LWVUS LEAGUE BASICS as:
Agreement by League members with a position on an issue reached by a small group of members or by
another League.
>tsh^-
^>/>
more information on concurrence policy and procedure.

Appendix B

Current case processing for 16- and 17-year-olds, youth processed as juvenile
offenders or as juvenile delinquents, and youth processed for behaviors that are
not criminal in nature (PINS).

PINS

Juvenile Delinquent

Juvenile Offender

Age

<18

E
offenses

Offense that would Serious offenses, defined Criminal offense or

be a crime if over by penal law
violation
age 15

Offense Type

Adult
16+

D W
petition
many cases
diversion

No opportunity prior to
court involvement

Jurisdiction

Family Court

Family Court

Criminal court with option

of Family Court removal
Criminal court

Youth facility Youth facility

 

Diversion
Options

Detention

Youth facility secure

only

Confinement

Local DSS
custody
(voluntary
agency(VA))

Local DSS custody OCFS 

(VA) OCFS custody center
(VA or range of
OCFS security)

No opportunity prior to
court involvement

County jail

County jail < 1 yr Prison 1
year+

Criminal Record N/A

No

Yessealed if disposed
through acquittal,
dismissal, a violation, or
youthful offender status

Youthful

Offender Status
N/A
Option

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yessealed if disposed
through acquittal,
dismissal, a violation, or
youthful offender status

Appendix C

History of Juvenile Justice in New York and other States

Many states, including New York and Ohio, began addressing juvenile justice in the early
nineteenth century. The general progression was to begin by taking steps to house juveniles in
separate facilities; to handle cases involving juvenile offenders in separate courtrooms in the
criminal courthouse, and then in separate courts, and finally to decriminalize youthful offenses.
New York first established a facility to house juvenile offenders in 1824, separate courts to
handle juvenile offenders cases began at the turn of the century and, by 1924, independent
juvenile courts were established in the entire state.
In 1909, the legislature decriminalized most youthful offenses, and began using the term
fenders which, if committed by an
adult, would be crimes. That law also prohibited the sentencing of a child under 16 to an adult
prison unless the charged with an offense punishable by death.
By 1925, every state but two had established its own juvenile courts. Ohio was one of the
states who, by the first quarter of the twentieth century had established separate juvenile
courts, based on the philosophy that children should be treated differently from adults, and
that the state, under the principles of parens patriae, was required to act as a wise and kindly
parent toward those children who are brought before it, often under procedures which
conflicted with understood principles of constitutional protections such as the right to counsel,
right to a jury trial and protection against self-incrimination.
With respect to the age at which persons would be treated as adults, New York, like most other
states initially set the maximum age of Juvenile Offenders at 16. By 1927, however, the
majority of states, following the lead of Illinois, had raised that age, often to 18. New York did
not follow suit although there were calls for such action from youth advocates and NYS crime
commissions. At the 1961 Constitutional Convention, from which the Family Court Act
emerged, the age of juvenile jurisdiction was discussed but not changed. A 1963 study failed
to issue recommendations on the issue, deferring the matter to further study.
THE FAMILY COURT ACT, which still forms the core of Family Court procedures, created a court
to manage all manner of issues affecting the family, such as juvenile delinquency, neglected
children.
After the Ez
there began a pattern of harsher treatment of juvenile offenders. In the Juvenile Justice
Reform Act of 1976, New York modified the parens patriae philosophy by requiring delinquency
adjudications to consider not only the best interests of the juvenile, but also the need to
protect the community. The legislation also introduced a new class of crime, known as a
Designated Felony Act (DFA), which increased the possible penalties for some juvenile

d
with the enactment in 1978 of the THE JUVENILE OFFENDER ACT which created a new category
of offender --:Kwhich consisted of 14- or 15-year-olds who were found
to have committed any of 14 specified violent crimes, and 13-year-olds responsible for second-
degree murder. Unless mitigating factors were found that would justify sending these cases to
Family Court, these Juvenile Offenders were treated as adults and processed in criminal court
as adults. If a youth is convicted in criminal court as a Juvenile Offender, New York Penal Law
specifies sentencing ranges that are less severe than for adults but more severe than those
available for juveniles convicted of DFAs in Family Court. Juvenile offenders are placed in
secure juvenile facilities, and may be kept there until they turn 21, at which point they must be
transferred to adult prisons (assuming they have time remaining on their sentences).
An anomaly in the trend of lowering the age at which young persons were held responsible for
their actions was enacted in 1978 which raised the age for PINS cases to eighteen. Recent
reforms in the last several years, many of which were enacted as funding initiatives, have been
directed at the facilities at which young people are housed, support for community based
services, an initiative which advanced the placement of youth close to their homes, and use of
risk assessment tools to determine how to handle juveniles introduced into the system.


Appendix D

KE>h^/KEK&d,ZWKZdK&d,'KsZEKZ^KDD/^^/KEKEzKhd,
PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
It is critically important for New York State to implement these reforms. Supported unanimously by this
Commission, these recommendations would move New York State from last in the nation on justice for
16- and 17- year-olds to the lead. While processing most offenses committed by 16- and 17-year-olds in
Family Court would bring New York in line with national practice, the complete package of proposed
reforms would do much more. It would: reduce crime victimization; provide meaningful opportunity for
a life without the stigma of a criminal record for adolescents who turn away from crime; eliminate the
disproportionate incarceration of 16- and 17-year-olds of color in adult jails and prisons; reserve the
juvenile placement system for only those few young people who present significant risk to public safety;
and create therapeutic out-of-home placement settings for older adolescents. Given this range of
benefits, the State should provide the financial investment to make these recommendations a reality.

Ez^
The recommendations contained in this report are as follows:

1.

Raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18, consistent with other states.

2.

Raise the lower age of juvenile jurisdiction to twelve, except for homicide offenses, which
should be raised to ten.

3.

The Governor should appoint one or more individuals with expertise in juvenile justice
and a commitment to these reforms to help coordinate their implementation.

4.

Expand to 16- and 17-year-olds the current juvenile practice regarding parental
notification of arrest and the use of Office of Court Administration-approved rooms for
questioning by police.

5.

Expand the use of videotaping of custodial interrogations of 16- and 17-year olds for felony
offenses.

6.

Mandate diversion attempts for low-risk (per risk assessment) misdemeanor cases except
where probation finds no substantial likelihood that youth will benefit from diversion in
the time remaining for adjustment or if time for diversion has expired and the youth has
not benefited from diversion services.

7.

Expand categories of cases eligible for adjustment to allow for adjustment in designated

felony cases and Juvenile Offender cases removed to Family Court, with a requirement for
court approval for all Juvenile Offender cases and if the youth is accused of causing
physical injury in a designated felony case. Revise the criteria for determining suitability for
adjustment to include risk level and the extent of physical injury to the victim.

8.

Create the capacity and a process for victims to obtain orders of protection without the
delinquency case being filed in court.

9.

Allow two additional months for probation diversion (beyond 120 days) if a
documented barrier to diversion exists or a change in service plan is needed.

10. Establish a continuum of diversion services that range from minimal intervention for

low-risk youth to evidence-based services for high-risk youth.

11. Establish family engagement specialists to facilitate adjustment.

12. Expand Family Court jurisdiction to include youth ages 16 and 17 charged with non-violent

felonies, misdemeanors, and harassment or disorderly conduct violations. Provide access to

bail for 16-and 17-year- olds in Family Court and allow Family Court judges to ride circuit to
hear cases, at the discretion of the Office of Court Administration.

13. Begin judicial processing in criminal court for current Juvenile Offender crimes as well as all

violent felony offenses; all homicide offenses; Class A felonies; sexually motivated felonies;
crimes of terrorism; felony vehicular assaults; aggravated criminal contempt; and
conspiracy to commit any of these offenses and tampering with a witness related to any of
these offenses for 16- and 17-year-old offenders.

14. Apply current standards for removal from criminal to Family Court of Juvenile Offender

cases to those cases against 16- and 17-year-olds that would originate in criminal court,
except for subdivision two of second degree robbery (a Juvenile Offender crime) and the
Violent Felony Offenses that are not Juvenile Offender crimes. For these latter offenses,
create a new rebuttable presumption for removal to Family Court. Such cases would be
removed to Family Court unless the prosecutor demonstrates that criminal prosecution is
in the interests of justice, considering the current criteria for removing a case to Family
Court and whether the youth either played a primary role in commission of the crime or
aggravating 
weapon, are present.

15. Create new Youth Parts, with specially trained judges, in criminal court for processing

those cases against 16- and 17-year-olds and other Juvenile Offenders who remain in
criminal court.

16. Clothe judges in criminal court Youth Parts with concurrent criminal court and Family Court

jurisdiction to allow Youth Parts to retain cases removed to Family Court under the new
presumption for removal and to handle them under the Family Court Act where appropriate.

17. Provide juvenile probation case planning and services for cases pending in criminal court.

18. Prohibit confinement of any minor in an adult jail or prison and, to the extent funding

and operational considerations allow, permit youth to remain in youth settings until
age 21.

19. Reduce current unnecessary use of detention and placement through:

a.

Prohibition of detention and placement for youth adjudicated for first-time or

second-time misdemeanors that do not involve harm to another person, and who
are low-risk, except where the court finds a specific imminent threat to public
safety;

b.

Prohibition of placement for technical probation violations alone, except where 1)

the court finds a specific imminent threat to public safety or 2) the youth is on
probation for a violent felony offense and the use of graduated sanctions has been
exhausted without successful compliance; and

c.

Implementation of weekend arraignment for Family Court cases

statewide where adult arraignment already occurs.

20. Establish Family Support Centers in high-PINS referral localities to provide more robust

community-based PINS services and then eliminate detention and placement of PINS.

21. Use statutory Juvenile Offender and Youthful Offender sentences for offenses committed at

ages 16 and 17 that are sentenced in criminal court, except for Class A felony offenses that
are not Juvenile Offender crimes. For Class B violent felony offenses, the court should have
statutory discretion to impose a longer adult sentence if the prosecution shows aggravating
circumstances, including severity of injury or gravity of risk to public safety.

22. Use determinate sentencing for youth sentenced under Juvenile Offender or Youthful
Offender statutes, including 16- and 17-year-olds.

23. Develop a continuum of effective community-based services at the local level to be used by

probation, including expansion of JRISC, to maintain more high-risk youth in the community
and reduce recidivism.

24. Develop residential facilities using best practices models to support the needs of older

adolescents, including:

a.

For newly required placement capacity, establish a network of new, small facilities
with staffing and programming consistent with the Missouri approach;

b.

Expansion of the August Aichhorn RTF model for youth with mental health
disorders; and

c.

Programs that meet the specialized needs of LGBT youth.

25. Reduce recidivism among the 18 24 population in the criminal justice system by:

a.

Using data-driven, risk-based methodology to prioritize DOCCS inmates aged 18-24 for
effective programs;

b.

Using technology to expand educational opportunities for 18-21-year-olds in DOCCS

custody; and

c.

Considering use of discrete housing units for youth transitioning from juvenile facilities
to DOCCS and for older adolescents at DOCCS

26. Establish and implement new OCFS regulations requiring evidence-based risk-needs-

responsivity (RNR) framework for case planning and management in private and state-
operated placement.

27. Require that youth sentenced in the criminal courts and released from an OCFS facility receive

post-release supervision from OCFS, instead of DOCCS, to facilitate better re-entry planning and
implementation.

28. Replicate the Monroe juvenile re-entry task force in counties with highest juvenile case volume.

29. Require reasonable efforts to establish at least one connection between placed youth and a

supportive adult in the home community before leaving placement.

30. Expand availability of supportive housing for older youth at release.

31. Create a new presumption to grant Youthful Offender status in criminal cases against

offenders who are under 21 if the youth has no previous felony finding. Allow the

presumption to be rebutted by the district attorney in the interest of justice. While Youthful
Offender eligibility should be extended to 19- and 20- year-olds, current adult sentencing
should be retained for 19- and 20-year-old Youthful Offenders.

32. Require all accusatory instruments in Youthful Offender eligible cases, except sex offenses,

to be filed as sealed instruments prior to trial.

33. Allow youth who receive Youthful Offender status on a drug offense to be eligible for

conditional discharge as those adults who are convicted of these offenses are so eligible.

34. Allow violent felony Youthful Offender adjudication for anyone 16 or over to be used as a

predicate in sentencing for subsequent violent felony charging and sentencing only.

35. Create the capacity to seal one conviction (excluding violent felonies, Class A felonies, homicides,

and sex offenses) for crimes committed under age 21.

36. Create the capacity to seal one Juvenile Offender conviction (excluding Class A felonies,
homicides and sex offenses) upon application to the court, if the person remains conviction-free
for 10 years after release from confinement.

37. Allow any person whose conviction occurred prior to the effective date of the law passed to

implement these reforms, and who would be otherwise eligible for a seal as described above,
to apply to the Division of Criminal Justice Services to obtain that seal, with notice of that
application to the district attorney and opportunity for the district attorney to require the seal
request to be considered by the court in particularly egregious cases.

38. Automate information exchanges between entities necessary to ensure that juvenile records

are destroyed as required by statute

Appendix F

Present Proposals
Last session there were two proposals on the table in Albanythat proposed by the Governor and a
legislative initiative. Both proposals reflect the findings of the NYS Commission that the implementation
of the Raise the Age principles require a rather extensive overhaul of the juvenile justice system.
The basic framework of both proposals is a gradual shift of jurisdiction over 16 and 17 year olds from
Criminal to Family Court for most, but not all crimes. Initial consideration of the most serious offenses
remains in the criminal courts, but these cases will be handled in specialized Youth Parts under
procedures which provide greater protections and eligibility for age-appropriate treatment.
The proposals require removal of all persons under the age of 18 from adult jails and prisons.
The proposals provide for greater opportunities for diversion from the court system and reduction in the
number of youths in detention and placement, particularly for those children designated as PINS.
The proposals contain provisions to assist young people in going forward with their lives by increasing
the categories of youth eligible for youthful-offender treatment, which does not end in a criminal
conviction, and expungement of criminal records.
Although most stakeholders agree in principle with the Raise the Age legislation, these specific proposals
are not without critics, whose assessments include beliefs that reforms should apply to all crimes, even
the most serious, objection to the increased jurisdiction of the Family Court to cover charges of
disorderly conduct, increase in the number of enumerated felonies which are defined as criminal acts
prosecutable in criminal court, use of youthful offender dispositions as predicate offenses for future
felonies.


Appendix G

League of Women Voters of New York State Positions

ALTERNATIVES TO BAIL
Statement of Position
As announced by the State Board, December 1975
Assurance that a defendant will return for trial should be obtained through means other than
bail, since bail is inherently discriminatory. Alternatives include expanded use of the
appearance ticket, release on own recognizance, conditional or supervised release, and
detention by written determination of the judge that there is no other alternative.

and

ATI POSITION
Statement of Position
As announced by the State Board, February 1993
Recognizing the enormous costs of state prisons and local jails, and the distressingly high
rates of recidivism, the League of Women Voters of New York State, at its convention in1991,
adopted a study of Alternatives to Incarceration.
In the criminal justice system there is a need for a broad range of punishments less restrictive
than incarceration. Prisons and jails must be viewed as a scarce and expensive resource to be
utilized only when necessary. The current system wastes time, money, and human resources.
The LWVNYS strongly supports the use of ATI for nonviolent offenders. There is a need for
earlier, more effective intervention and, if applicable, treatment. Sanctions should be more
innovative, constructive and less restrictive.

Eligibility
The League concurs with the American Bar Association Model Adult Community Corrections
Act of February 1992. The following offender groups shall be eligible for sentencing to
community-based sanctions:
1. Those convicted of misdemeanors;
2. Nonviolent felony offenders, including drug abusers and other offenders with special
treatment needs;
3. Violators of parole, probation, and community corrections conditions whose violation
conduct is either non-criminal or would meet eith er criterion (a) or (b) above had it been
charged as a criminal violation;
4. Offenders who, although not eligible under criteria (a) through (c) above, are found by the
court to be the type of individuals for whom such a sentence would be appropriate. In
making such a determination, the judge shall consider factors that bear on the danger posed
and the likelihood of recidivism by the offender, including but not limited to the following:

a. That the offender has a sponsor in the community;

b. That the offender is employed or has enrolled in an educational or rehabilitative program;
c. That the offender has not demonstrated a pattern of violent behavior and does not have a
criminal record that indicates a pattern of violent offenses.

Evaluation of individual offenders
From the time of arrest, individual offenders should be carefully screened and matched with
appropriate programs. In the screening process, the highest priorities are:
1.
Public Safety
2.
Rehabilitation of the offender, including treatment for substance abuse, education
beginning with basic literacy skills, vocational responsibility training, and family intervention
3.
Severity of the crime
4.
Violence of the crime

Additional factors to be considered are:
1. Victim satisfaction with sentence
2. Rate of failure to appear (FTA) in court of those in Pre-Trial Release programs compared
with rate of FTA of those released on bail.

The Criminal Justice Process:
The LWVNYS strongly supports greater discretion in the use of alternatives at all stages of the
criminal justice process; i.e., pre-trial, sentencing, and re-entry.
To encourage use of ATIs:
The League strongly supports:

1. Education of the public, legislators, and all personnel in the criminal justice system
2. Reform of drug laws
3. Repeal of the second felony offender law.
The League also supports:
1. State funding incentives for ATI programs
2. Expansion of defender-based advocacy programs
3. Mandated consideration of least-restrictive sanctions, which should be documented in the
pre-sentencing report.


Additional factors to be considered are:
1. Previous criminal history
2. Ties to the community, including job and family
3. Deterrence of further criminal activity
4. Potential for restitution
5. Interest and willingness to take part in alternative program
6. Cost of program.

Evaluation of ATI programs:

Evaluation of the effectiveness of an alternative program should include:
1. Rate of re-convictions of those who have completed the program
2. Rate of successful completions of the program
3. Cost of program v. cost of incarceration and other savings to community
4. Equal access to the program for all eligible offenders
5. Public confidence and community involvement.

State legislation
The League strongly favors state legislation supporting ATI programs. This legislation
should include a Master Plan that provides:
1. Funding incentives for the use of ATI programs.
2. Evaluation of individual programs
3. Minimum standards in local program operations
4. Methods for encouraging community support.

In conclusion, the LWVNYS believes it is essential that there be long-term evaluation and
sufficient funding of alternative programs.

Finally, there is the overarching League principle, which states that no person or group should
suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination. Both the Ohio League and the NYS
Commission report have identified ways in which many juvenile justice laws have
discriminatory impacts on racial minorities.

Appendix H

Ohio Studies
The LWV of Ohio first adopted a position on the system of juvenile justice in 1973. That position at the
time supported a 1969 revision to the Ohio law which was in keeping with the rehabilitative philosophy
which was the prevailing attitude of the time.
The stated goals of the juvenile justice system were :
_d
_ To protect the public interest in removing the consequences of criminal behavior and the taint of
criminality from children committing delinquent acts and to substitute therefore a program of
supervision, care, and rehabilitation;
_ To achieve the foregoing purposes, whenever possible, in a family environment, separating the child
from its parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the interests of public safety;
_ d
are assured of a fair hearing, and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and
enforced.
The League supported local treatment as a desirable alternative to large centralized institutions and the
development and use of local social service programs to provide appropriate treatment for unruly and
delinquent children and their families.
The League also supported local treatment as a desirable alternative to large centralized institutions and
the development and use of local social service programs to provide appropriate treatment for unruly
and delinquent children and their families.
In 1974 the League added to its position support for:
positive, individualized, humane treatment, the right to: bodily safety and integrity; freedom from
physical and mental abuse; mental and physical health care; drug and alcohol treatment; education
appropriate to a child's intellectual, emotional, and physical capacities;
access to the courts for enforcement of rights; and periodic review of placement and treatment. The
League also supported standards relating to juvenile records which protect the offender from
unnecessary consequences of criminal behavior and the taint of criminality; and provisions relating to
the expungement of all juvenile records.

Further positions adopted in 1979 reflected member interest in limiting use of secure facilities and
developing community services and nonsecure facilities as alternatives and included support for:

_ Individual evaluation of each case before the court.

_ "Least restrictive" concept in determining placement of children awaiting court action as well as after


_ Minimum standards for secure facilities that provide for:
a) Right to personal possessions, privacy, freedom of and from religion, personal communications,
limitations and procedural requirements for discipline, grievance and appeal mechanisms, periodic
review of placement, bodily safety.
b) Program: initial physical, mental, psychological evaluation; medical and dental care; recreation and
exercise; education for individual needs; vocational training; psychiatric and psychological services;
work-release and school release programs; follow up after release.
c) Staff: ratio of staff to youth, qualifications, supervision, and accountability.
Opposition to:
_ Placing unruly children in secure facilities (defined as those with architectural barriers).
_ Holding any children in adult jails.
In response to fears of rampant juvenile crime nearly every state, including Ohio, passed laws to handle
more youth as adult criminals. The purpose of the Ohio juvenile justice system was changed from
rehabilitation to offender accountability and protection of public safety; permitted commitment of 10
and 11 year old; blended youth and adult sentences and jury trials; broadened the scope of truancy laws
broadened the scope of registration of sexual offenders.
In light of the changes in the law, in 2002 the Ohio league re-visited its positions to determine if league
members wished to reaffirm them. The locals were asked to consider whether they wished to stand by
the following statements:
1. Children under the age of 18 are not adults and that their treatment within the juvenile justice
system should relate to their stage of development.
2. Children should not be held in adult jails.
3. The purpose of the juvenile system is rehabilitation.
4. Children's legal rights, including expungement of records, should be enforced.
5. State standards for detention facilities should be enforced.
In addition, areas of expansion of the existing positions were presented for consideration to the local
leagues which included:
x


uses the resources of the extended community to give each individual child a continuum of care;

alternative educational services to address the specific and individual needs of children who do
not succeed in traditional schools;

support for a restorative rather than retributive system of juvenile justice;

development of gender-specific services that offer programs directed at girls

the right of juveniles to equal and unbiased treatment regardless of race or ethnicity.

All of these expansions to the original position were adopted.

L W V N YS ST A T E W I D E C O N C U R R E N C E O N
R A ISE T H E A G E POSI T I O N
R E P O R T I N G SH E E T
NAME OF LEAGUE______________________________________________________
CONTACT: _____________________________________________________________
Please complete this concur rence form, submit it for board approval and forward it to the state
L eague by January 1, 2016.
Concur rence Position:
1. Children under the age of 18 are not adults and their treatment within the juvenile justice and
criminal court system should relate to their stage of development.
2. Children should not be held in adult jails.
3. Rehabilitation is the purpose of the juvenile justice system.
4. The legal rights of children should be protected.
If the concurrence in adopted, these principles will form our position on Juvenile Justice.
Please check one of the following:
__________W e support the concur rence position on Juvenile Justice
__________W e oppose the concur rence position on Juvenile Justice.
Process by which this form was completed (board meeting, general membe rship meeting, polling
of members, etc.).
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

M ail, F ax or E mail completed form to

L W V N YS, 62 G rand St, A lbany, N Y 12207
F ax: 518-465-0812 E mail: K atrina@lwvny.org
Q uestions: Call K atrina at 518-465-4162