Abuse & Neglect Proceedings Will Soon be Open to the General Public

*** SB 207 is lengthy and makes several changes in the current law. In order to keep this blog from growing tediously long and lose your attention, this post is only looking at SB 207's effect on presumptively opening the court to the general public in deprivation proceedings. I encourage you to read all of SB 207 located at http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/sb207.htm ***

Currently in Georgia, the general public is excluded from all juvenile court cases that involve deprivation (abuse and neglect).* Although the First Amendment guarantees the right to view criminal proceedings, that right had not yet been extended to deprivation cases in juvenile court. Such is largely due to the rationale that rehabilitation and family reunification, the goals of juvenile court, are best achieved in privacy. However, beginning in January 2010, that will all change.

During the 2009 legislative session, Governor Perdue signed SB 207 into law, which will "presumptively" open deprivation hearings to the public. "Presumptively" is set off in quotation marks because it is possible to close the proceedings. However, the procedures to close hearings are not clearly defined and leave a lot to judges' subjective interpretation and discretion. For example, SB 207 allows judges to close deprivation proceedings based on a finding on the record and issue a signed order stating the reasons for closing all or part of the proceedings. This provision is leaving a lot of advocates, attorneys, and judges confused. Don't understand why? Let me illustrate the way this provision reads:

Attorney for Little Child feels that Mr. No Good's presence during the deprivation hearing
will not be in Little Child's best interest because of the information that Little Child will
share with the court. To prevent Mr. No Good from attending the deprivation hearing, a
separate hearing, that includes Mr. No Good, is required and Attorney must give the
court evidence of why Mr. No Good's presence is harmful to Little Child, (i.e. tell the court
and Mr. No Good all of the information that Attorney would like to keep from Mr. No
Good and why it would be bad if Mr. No Good heard the information.... all while Mr. No
Good is present and listening). Make sense?

Moving away from the procedures to close deprivation hearings, let me move now to the main issue that troubles me with the changes that SB 207 makes. I'm worried about children being able to learn personal, sensitive information about other children. Since deprivation hearings are now open, any parent and child at the juvenile court will be able to attend the deprivation hearing. I imagine the situation where a child that is at the court for a delinquency (criminal) charge sees another child from school and decides to check out that child's deprivation hearing. During the hearing, the delinquent child learns all about the abuse the deprived child suffered, and the degrading, disgusting things the deprived child had to do in order to survive. Then, since children are children, the delinquent child goes to school and tells everyone about everything that came out during the deprived child's hearing. Then, not only did the deprived child have to endure living the abuse and neglect all over again in the courtroom, but now the deprived child has to face the questions, taunts, bullying, and pity of his or her peers.

Now as I stated in the caveat, this post is only a very small portion of SB 207. However, I'm curious to know if I am the only one bothered by this. Critics of closed deprivation hearings believe that opening the deprivation hearings will raise accountability...many, including myself, believe that it will raise the number of safety concerns and problems. Parents, teachers, attorneys....how does this make you feel? What problems can you imagine as a result of SB 207?

*However, the general public is allowed to attend legitimation and child support hearings.

Should Juveniles be Sentence to Life without Parole?

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that sentencing a juvenile to death is cruel and unusual punishment. Today, Monday November 9, 2009, the US Supreme Court will confront whether it is also cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The two cases before the Supreme Court are Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida.

• Summary of Graham- In 2003, 16 year old Terrance Graham was charged with battery and attempted armed robbery when he struck a restaurant owner over the head with a steel bar while attempting to rob him. Graham pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to 12 months in the county jail and 3 years of probation. Six months after his release from the county jail, Graham was arrested for a series of armed home invasion robberies. Judge Lance Day stated to Graham that, "it is apparent to the court that you have decided that this is the way you are going to live your life and that the only thing I can do now is to try to protect the community from your actions." Graham's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to life in prison.

• Summary of Sullivan- In 1989, then 13 year old Joe Sullivan was tried and convicted of beating, raping, and robbing (twice) an elderly woman in her 70's. Earlier in the day while the victim was away, Sullivan broke into her home and stole some items. After she returned home, Sullivan returned to her home, beat, rapped, and robbed her again.

Both Graham and Sullivan appealed their convictions and lost at every level of appeal. Then in 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for juveniles was unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote that, "When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity." Thus, likening life in prison without the possibility of parole to the death penalty, the lawyers for Graham and Sullivan have again appealed.

The arguments:

• Supporters of tough criminal sanctions for juveniles: Juveniles who commit the same heinous crimes as adults should be punished like adults, which can include life without parole. Juvenile offenders should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate and reform their lives for the better. However, if those efforts fail and their offenses become more violent, society is safer if those juveniles are sentenced to long term imprisonment.

• Opponents of tough criminal sanctions for juveniles: Juveniles are developmentally different from adults and their characters are still being formed. It is still possible for juvenile offenders to be rehabilitated and reform their lives before they reach adulthood. Thus, to sentence a juvenile to life without parole is to give up on the juvenile prematurely.

The facts & stats:

• Florida, Louisiana, Iowa, California, Nebraska, and South Carolina have all sentenced juveniles to life in prison for non-homicide crimes.

• It is estimated that 2,500 inmates nationwide are serving life sentences for crimes committed as juveniles; 109 of which are for non-homicide crimes.

So, should juveniles be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes? What about for homicide crimes? I have given you the background, arguments, and stats and now it's your turn to give me your opinion!