Teenage Wasteland of Juvenile Justice

Teenage Wasteland - The Sad State of Juvenile Justice In popular culture, teens are often comically portrayed as a constantly exasperated group whose motto is "that's not fair." This is meant to be funny, since teens are supposed to mature and learn that life, of course, is not fair - and that's just the way things are. But certain things in life - like the U.S. criminal justice system - are designed to give all people a fair shot. Unfortunately, according to a recent study published by the National Juvenile Defender Center and the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern Law School, many teens are receiving questionable treatment in criminal court. The study examined the practices of juvenile criminal courts in 16 Illinois counties and 15 other states, focusing on teens with court-appointed lawyers, reports the Associated Press, and found some alarming trends. In some courts, all teens are apparently required to wear shackles in the courtroom - no matter the seriousness of their offense. Worse, many teens do not have access to criminal defense attorneys with enough time or experience to adequately prepare their cases, sources say. The study reportedly found that, as a result of this lawyer deficiency, as many as 70% or more of teenagers take plea bargains instead of standing trial. Reports indicate that, for some, this translates to pleading guilty to more serious charges than necessary, simply to get the process "over with." Guilty pleas and convictions can in turn determine whether or not a juvenile is charged as an adult for later offenses as well as length of a prison sentence. Pantagraph.com reports that, in many cases, the defense attorneys assigned to juvenile cases are young and have little experience. This is especially worrisome because the juvenile criminal justice system requires specialized knowledge and training. And experts are apparently troubled by the high frequency of plea bargaining, which should not be used as a means of processing a large volume of criminal defense cases, especially when the defendant stands a decent chance of being acquitted at trial. The authors of the study suggested several measures for improving the juvenile court system, including providing more enthusiastic, available legal counsel for the defendants. And another study done on New York's juvenile criminal justice system underlined the need for such reforms. Newsday.com reports that New York's juveniles convicted of crimes cost the state $150,000 each per year to keep in custody. And a reported 75% of those released from custody reoffend within three years. According to one official, it's time for change. An underlying issue in both studies is the effect of the juvenile systems on the kids they're supposed to serve. In both Illinois and New York, juvenile offenders are subject to a flawed system that often has nothing to do with justice or "fairness." One analyst reportedly fears that kids simply lose faith in the criminal justice system when it doesn't work for them. And those who don't trust the system often choose to live outside it-as career criminals.The information I am posting comes from the Web or Hassett and Associates P.A. If you would like to learn more about us go to www.criminaldefense.cc.

DNA Science Is NOT So Accurate

Identification Errors Increase as DNA Science Expands By: Gerri L Elder DNA evidence is largely regarded as the final word in the identification of criminal suspects. It is the most reliable forensic science and plays an integral part in many criminal cases, to the frustration of some criminal defense attorneys. However, as effective as DNA identification is, it's not perfect and has limits. A recent article by The Los Angeles Times highlighted the imperfections in DNA science. Contamination of samples or samples that go untested for many years can produce inaccurate results and reap havoc on the justice system. In 2004, Jerry Bellamy was arrested in New Jersey and charged with the murder of Jane Durrua, reported The Los Angeles Times. Durrua, an eighth-grade student, was raped, beaten and strangled 36 years before Bellamy's arrest. Prosecutor John Kaye announced that through DNA science, the mystery of Durrua's murder had been solved. As it turned out, Bellamy did not murder Durrua. Two years after his arrest, investigators discovered that DNA evidence from the murder scene had been contaminated. Bellamy's DNA was being tested in an unrelated case at the same lab that the Durrua crime scene evidence was being examined. When this error was discovered, Bellamy was freed. Another man was arrested for the murder, but died before trial. DNA evidence is often used to exonerate people who have been wrongly convicted; however, mislabeled and contaminated samples can also link innocent people to crimes. During criminal trials, DNA evidence is represented by prosecutors as infallible, and jurors generally believe that DNA can't be wrong. The problem is that it can - and sometimes it is. In some cases, crime labs have huge backlogs of DNA samples that sit untested. While this evidence collects dust, criminals who could have been caught have the opportunity to commit another crime. There have also been debates about whether DNA collection and storage is constitutional. Civil rights advocates argue that storing DNA of people who have been arrested but not convicted is a violation of privacy. Despite the imperfections, backlogs and questions about violating rights, a dramatic DNA database expansion in planned. Starting in January 2009, California Proposition 69, which passed in 2004, will allow authorities to store the DNA of anyone arrested on suspicion of serious misdemeanors and felonies. These DNA samples will be stored regardless of conviction. California's DNA database is expected to grow by 300,000 in 2009. The FBI's national DNA database currently contains approximately 6.4 million profiles. This database is expected to grow by about 1.3 million each year with the addition of DNA profiles from federal arrests and illegal immigrants. When Prop. 69 passed in California, it was believed that innocent people should not be afraid of having their DNA profiles stored in a database. Now that more errors have been discovered, it seems that there may be reason for concern. UC Irvine criminology professor William Thompson is considered the leading authority in the U.S. on DNA laboratory error. The Los Angeles Times obtained documents from five state-run and three county forensic labs and discovered reports of many laboratory errors or "unexpected" results over a five-year period ending in 2007. Thompson reviewed the records for The Times and concluded that laboratory personnel routinely make mistakes that could lead to the false identification of suspects. Without a doubt, as DNA databases grow, so do the chances that innocent people will be linked to crimes.The information I am posting comes from the Web or Hassett and Associates P.A. If you would like to learn more about us go to www.criminaldefense.cc.