Across the country, states are working to reform their juvenile justice systems in order to emphasize youth rehabilitation and violence prevention. Just this past Thursday, the – which was created by Gov. Nathan Deal – and discussed its top priority of crafting a juvenile justice reform bill. In order to draft the reform legislation, the panel is looking at states such as Texas and Ohio, which have been able to reform their juvenile justice systems and reduce the number of children they incarcerate by, in part, emphasizing alternatives to incarceration for youth and, when appropriate, reducing the amount of time children spend in prison. These changes have played a significant role in reducing the states’ juvenile prison populations and saving scarce taxpayer dollars while maintaining public safety.
Notably, in Chicago, the movement has helped reduce youth violence through concentrated intervention initiatives. , by Steven James and Alex Kotlowitz, is an award-winning documentary that follows three CeaseFire “violence interrupters” in Chicago who have dedicated their lives to preventing the violence they once employed in their communities. The violence interrupters work with members of the community, particularly youth, to detect and prevent crime and violence before they occur. The film is a gripping portrait of a city beset by violence and crime including the brutal beating of High School student Derrion Albert, whose death was caught on videotape. It also underscores the important role intervention programs play in reducing crime and youth gang activity.
A great-sized crowd showed for The Interrupters discussion on Capital Hill.
As part of the ACLU’s ongoing effort to reform the juvenile justice system by strengthening and expanding the use of violence prevention initiatives, the Washington Legislative Office recently hosted a congressional briefing on The Interrupters. The briefing featured remarks from Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) and an engaging panel discussion with Kotlowitz – the film’s producer and author of the national bestseller, There Are No Children Here – and violence interrupters Cobe Williams and Ameena Mathews. The event attracted a broad range of attendees including public defenders, law professors, high school principals, students, public health officials, advocates, direct service providers and congressional staff. In addition to learning about both Cobe’s and Ameena’s experiences working as violence interrupters, the briefing was also an opportunity to discuss the importance of preventing youth violence before it occurs.
One way in which Congress could prevent youth violence and help decrease youth gang involvement and reduce crime is by passing the (YPA). The legislation would effectively help reduce youth crime by providing revenue for comprehensive community-based prevention and intervention strategies, such as Chicago’s CeaseFire movement, that decrease juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity.
The Interrupters Panel: (from left to right) Cobe Williams, Amena Matthews, Congressman Bobby Scott, Alex Kotlowitz, Jennifer Bellamy, Aaron Voldman
The bipartisan bill represents a much-needed alternative to Congress’ usual approach to youth crime, which too often leads to increased penalties and expansion of the federal code. Instead, the YPA is aims to curb youth violence without relying on misguided and ineffective “tough on crime” politics.
The YPA focuses on addressing the underlying cause of youth crime and, as , “many of the programs funded under the Youth PROMISE Act will save more money than they cost.”
Surely, we need to hold all people accountable for their actions, but our current system is overly severe, fails to take advantage of the increased potential for rehabilitation in youth, and ultimately jeopardizes public safety. By supporting cost-effective, evidence-based prevention and intervention programs, Congress can follow the states’ example and help keep youth out of trouble while maintaining public safety.
Learn more about juvenlie justice: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.