Amidst Intense Partisanship, a Glimmer of Light Shines Through on Juvenile Justice Reform
Last week the Senate took an important step in giving vulnerable kids a chance to turn their lives around outside the penal system.
In a rare unanimous vote, senators passed the . The bill funds programs that keep kids out of the criminal justice system and establishes national standards for protecting youth that are already incarcerated from further victimization, potential abuse, and, perhaps, future offenses.
Earlier this year, the House demonstrated its commitment to such reforms by passing a similar bill, the . Both bills will now have their differences ironed out in a conference committee. The House version phases out a provision in current law that allows minors to be locked up for noncriminal behaviors — skipping school, smoking cigarettes underage, violating curfews, and running away from home. The Senate bill does not. We believe the House version is the better bill.
Kids mess up all the time. They should not have to face life-altering consequences for making childish mistakes like skipping school.
Both bills include important federal policy reforms -- for example, more stringent screening of boys and girls who may have been exploited by human traffickers prior to entering the system or who may have otherwise been abused. Both would prohibit the shackling of pregnant girls in detention. They also call for greater data collection, compelling states to provide reports on the use of isolation on juveniles in detention facilities. Both would insure that kids are subject to as little interruption as possible in their education.
If the Senate accepts the House protections, young people like , who started in the family court system as a victim of parental neglect and abuse, could be helped.
Sarah dealt with the trauma of her chaotic home life by skipping school. To teach her a lesson, a judge sentenced Sarah to five days in a juvenile detention facility. But the punishment was misdirected, because the underlying issues that caused Sarah to flee her abusive environment were never addressed. And so she continued to skip school and run away from home. Sarah ended up spending 40 days over a three-year period locked up for truancy and breaking curfew without ever having committed a crime.
Kids mess up all the time. They should not have to face life-altering consequences for small mistakes. Such policies are detrimental to society as well as the long term well-being of the child. A common sense juvenile justice system that prioritizes prevention and alternatives to incarceration reduces costs to taxpayers and increases public safety.
During this time of intense partisanship, recognition among Democrats and Republicans that our nation’s children need and deserve additional protections is a heartening glimmer of light. A version of this bill is very likely to become law. We want the best version to make it across the finish line.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story