|
Juvenile Justice
Corina Vulpe
Michael Duc Ta
struck me as a soft-spoken kid with a talent for
poetry and passion for British Literature. He
is a thoughtful young man, but many cannot get
past the stereotypical convict facing thirty-five
years to life. 
Michael was sentenced
to thirty-five years in prison based on his involvement
in a crime committed at the age of sixteen. He
was the driver of the vehicle from which two members
of a gang were shot at. No one was killed or wounded,
but Michael received the same punishment as the
two other passengers of the car who were known
to be members of another gang. Although the prosecution
was unable to provide proof of Michael’s
membership in any gang, the current law punishes
anyone associated with a gang related incident
as if they were part of the gang.
In recent years,
juvenile crime laws across the country have gotten
stricter. From 1987 to 1996 juvenile cases moved
to criminal court increased by 47% (Adam 10).
California State Proposition 21, passed March
7, 2000, has increased the number of juvenile
cases transferred to criminal court from approximately
one hundred and seventy in 1998 to over one thousand
in 2001 (Krikorian 5). Even before the ‘tough
on crime’ laws were enforced, nationwide
violent criminal activity has been steadily declining
since 1993.
I became familiar
with Michael’s case through Juvies, a documentary
produced and directed by award-winning filmmaker
Leslie Neale. The film focuses on twelve juveniles
awaiting trial in Los Angles Central Juvenile
Hall. The charges of these teens range from robbery
to murder. The “vending machine justice”
the system awards these kids, as Leslie states
in the film, shocked me.
 “You
do the crime, you serve the time,” is emphasized
by a young man in the documentary. Of course punishment
should be applied to any criminal activity, whether
juvenile or adult. However, the consequences of
jailing the young offenders for the next thirty-five
years results in further diminishing their self-esteem
and then releasing them with no skills, no hope
and full of the animosity instilled by the prison
life. A portion of the documentary is dedicated
to interviews of juveniles who have already completed
a few years in adult prison. Viewing the realities
of prison is enlightening. Apparently knives can
be made out of newspaper and soap.
Most of the kids
interviewed in the documentary come from impoverished,
minority backgrounds. The February 19, 1996 issue
of Time reported that all juveniles in adult prison
in the states of Texas and Connecticut were minorities
(Adam 10). As confessed by the teens featured
in the film, most come from a history of physical,
sexual and mental abuse. In Michael’s instance,
the only previous encounter with the police was
at the age of fourteen when his father beat him
and held a gun to his head, threatening to kill
him, a year before he attempted to commit suicide.
California Senator
Chuck Poochigian insists that the current laws
are meant “to discourage violent behavior
and to make sure [young offenders] know that the
consequences will be swift, certain and tough”
(Adam 10). However, the teenagers interviewed
could not fathom the punishment that they were
about to receive. Most estimated that a few years
would be fitting in cases where ten, twenty, thirty
years were granted. Four of the adolescents featured
in the film received life sentences. 
A short-term solution
to a long-term problem has been created without
considering all the future effects. One Florida
study found that juveniles transferred to the
adult prison were three times more likely to get
rearrested and twice as quickly as the ones who
were sent to juvenile facilities (Adam 10). While
juvenile facilities foster rehabilitation by offering
programs such as writing classes, the adult system
in California is punishment oriented.
Since the 1980’s
prison budgets have tripled across the country,
while higher education budgets have increased
by less than a third. The money spent on imprisonment
has increased as the funds for education have
dropped. California taxpayers spend $ 95.95 per
person on prisons and only $ 2.46 per person on
higher education in one year (In Prison). Our
priorities are poorly distributed and at the expense
of people such as Michael. The current process
provides a loss all around. Rather than applying
taxpayers’ money to eliminate an existing
problem the funds would better serve prevention
programs such as community education and after
school programs.
Michael is now
20 years old and serving the rest of his thirty-five
year prison sentence which he was awarded two
years ago. His chance for parole will come up
in 2031. Michael is perfect example of the exaggeration
in punishment intended to prevent crime on California’s
streets.
Thanks to contributions
from California Council for Humanities and Pacific
Pioneer Fund, Juvies was made possible. Leslie’s
hard work and dedication to this project has brought
this issue to light.
Works Cited
“In Prison We Trust.”
Mother Jones July/August 2001.
Juvies. Dir. Leslie Neale. Chance Films, 2003.
Adam, Rich. “Adult Consequences for Young
Offenders.” State Government News April
2000 vol. 43: 10.
Krikorian Greg. “Dispute Grows Over Tough
Gang-Related Sentencing.” Los Angeles Times
9
April 2001 sec. B: 5.
Madden, Kerry. “A Voice Inside.” Los
Angeles Times Sunday Magazine 3 Nov. 2002.
Neale, Leslie. Personal Interview 15 April 2003.
Corina Vulpe is Santa Monica College
student and editor of the Political/Economic section
of Voices Magazine.
|
