Last week during his historic trip as the first sitting U.S. president to visit a federal prison, President Barack Obama was struck by how youthful mistakes, not unlike his own, could feed the mass incarceration pipeline and land young people in jail —potentially for life.
“[H]ow do we make sure that those same kind of institutional supports are there for kids and teenagers before they get into the criminal justice system, and are there ways for us to divert young people who make mistakes early on in life so that they don’t get into the system in the first place.”
( are the stories that President Obama would have heard if he had visited incarcerated youth.)
Fortunately for President Obama, a bill that directly addresses his question not only already exists but has begun the process of moving toward his desk. While much of the country’s focus is on reforming the U.S. adult criminal justice system, a strong bipartisan group of senators are working to ensure that these protections extend to our nation’s youth. Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will markup the introduced by . It is compassionate legislation designed to divert at risk youth from a life of institutionalization and protect kids who are incarcerated.
Even though much of the focus is on reforming the adult justice system, research clearly shows that we cannot reduce mass incarceration without juvenile justice reform. An Arkansas Division of Youth Services found that incarceration is the single most significant factor in predicting whether a youth will offend again, more so even than poor family relationships or gang affiliation. Another study of Chicago youth processed by the Juvenile Court of Cook County found that “”
For girls, sexual abuse is among the of girls’ involvement with juvenile justice systems, yet systems are often ill-equipped to identify or treat the problem. Former Kentucky Department of Justice Commissioner Hasan Davis how children enter the system as victims of abuse and neglect, only to later be locked up for running away from abusive homes as teenagers.
One of those teenagers was Sarah.
Over a 3-year period, she spent 40 days locked up for missing school and running away without ever having committed a crime. When Commissioner Hasan last saw Sarah, she was being detained on criminal charges. used to detain Sarah could have been more humanely and cost effectively used to prevent her earlier victimization.
A few days prior to his visit of El Reno Federal Correctional Institution, President Obama commuted the sentences of 46 individuals — 14 of whom had been serving life sentences — who were in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. While reducing mandatory minimum sentencing rules for nonviolent drug offenders is a crucial component of criminal justice reform, President Obama must also take concrete steps to counteract our society’s zeal for incarcerating kids.
If we truly care about stopping mass incarceration, we must end it for the weakest and most vulnerable members of society — our kids. The most effective sentencing reform is keeping the next generation out of prison in the first place. The JJDPA will help at-risk children receive the interventions that they need to ensure that they are able to spend their childhood in the classroom instead of the courtroom.
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