A wealth of research shows youth incarceration doesn't increase public safety or work for youth well-being, according to a recent report from the Sentencing Project.

Despite the evidence, West Virginia has been slow to implement juvenile-justice reforms and reduce the number of kids behind bars.

In recent years, West Virginia had the highest rate of incarcerated youths in the nation - with 329 youths in state custody in 2017.

Senior Fellow at the Sentencing Project and report author Richard Mendel said effective alternatives to incarceration are catching on in some states.

He pointed to Credible Messengers, a program that provides intensive mentoring to youths at high risk of offending.

"The mentors work intensively with young people," said Mendel. "They're typically available 24/7, providing support and encouragement and crisis intervention for the young people."

According to state data, out of more than three hundred probation officers in West Virginia, twenty work in county school systems.

Recently, the state's juvenile-justice subcommittee recommended more than $300,000 in funding toward community-based programs and services for juveniles and their families.

Mendel said alternatives to traditional court processing include restorative justice conferencing, which focuses on repairing the harm caused by an offense.

During conferencing, the crime victim and the young person meet along with important people in their lives, discuss the harm caused by the events, and craft a plan for the youths to make it right to pay back the victim.

"To date, most restorative-justice programs have focused on minor offenses," said Mendel. "But some jurisdictions have started employing restorative justice as an alternative to court processing for youth."

Nearly a decade ago, West Virginia passed a statute eliminating life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, and requiring juvenile offenders be eligible for parole after serving no more than 15 years.

New York City community advocates want to reduce the number of stop-and-frisk encounters with police.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New York City reported the city's police department made more than 15,000 stops so far in 2023, the most since 2015. Data also show police primarily stopped Black and Latino people, although they were mostly innocent or not given a summons.

Christine Rivera, defense attorney for adolescents at Bronx Defenders, said the City Council is looking at legislation to increase transparency about why the stops are necessary.

"What the How Many Stops Act is asking for is, we want reports on those lower-level encounters as well," Rivera explained. "First of all, the federal monitor said that 29% of all Level 3 stops are not even being properly recorded. So, we don't even have the proper data for what is required right now."

The bill also calls for proper documentation of Level 1 and Level 2 stops. The measure builds on the Right to Know Act, which went into effect in 2018.

Rivera noted once the bill is passed, community groups such as hers will work on implementation, including developing a new documentation system, seeing what kind of oversight can eliminate problems and determining the training police officers will need for the new system.

Some precincts comply with federal monitors, but Rivera pointed out that those locations are not primarily where Black and Latino people are being stopped. In order for real change to come about, she feels state legislators might have to step in, since it is a growing problem on Long Island as well.

"Having our state legislators and our representatives apply pressure on the NYPD," Rivera suggested. "A lot of these police unions play a powerful role in these spaces, and maybe holding our council members' feet to the fire to say, 'Listen, you can't keep supporting this institution when it's causing so much harm in the community that you're representing.'"

She added community outreach and education has helped people understand the issues at hand. Her goal is to continue meeting with legislators and constituents to maintain the momentum on increasing police transparency.

Senate lawmakers are soon expected to vote on the Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act, legislation introduced this year by Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

The bill would allow doctors to prescribe and pharmacies to dispense methadone for people with opioid-use disorder. Currently, methadone is tightly regulated and can only be accessed through certified opioid treatment facilities.

Jordan Scott, digital advocacy coordinator for the Pennsylvania Harm Reduction Network, said the regulations mostly affect people in rural regions who cannot get to methadone clinics or who end up using diverted methadone, which can lead to arrests and time in jail.

"There are some states, like West Virginia, where there's a state law in effect that places a hold on any new opioid treatment programs opening within the state," Scott pointed out. "And when we look at really rural areas, those numbers of how many people able to access methadone goes down even further."

Methadone is a Schedule II drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Critics of the bill argue methadone is an opiate which can be abused, and in some cases may be replacing one addictive medication for another, especially if used in isolation, without counseling or as part of a treatment program.

Scott contends the bill would make people less likely to rely on using street-supply substances with a high risk of containing fentanyl, if they know they can obtain methadone safely and locally.

"If my closest clinic is an hour-and-a-half, two hours away, but my primary care doctor is 20 minutes away, this act would allow me to be able to go to my primary care doctor," Scott emphasized.

The Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act would also require the federal government to track data nationwide on methadone prescriptions and the number of providers.

Government accountability groups want increased transparency in New York criminal court decisions. This comes after a new report finds only 6% of decisions are published annually.

Since the number of judges presiding over criminal cases isn't made available by the court system, it's uncertain how many judges aren't publishing decisions. Of the 600 New York criminal court judges publishing at least one decision, 20 were responsible for 28% of all decisions published.

Oded Oren, executive director of Scrutinize, a judicial accountability group, explained why transparency is so important.

"When decisionmakers or New Yorkers need to make a decision about whether to reappoint or re-elect a judge, it is important that they have information before them to understand how this judge is applying the law and what their decisions are," Oren said.

Without these written decisions, assessing judicial decision making and its impacts are much harder. One concern is a person's identity being made public in a published ruling.

Oren pointed out that, instead of putting a person's full name, judges can use a person's initials, their last name only or simply redact that information.

While laws are on the books about how decisions can be published, they're not being enforced. Reasons these decisions aren't being published include judges having high workloads, or feeling their day-to-day rulings aren't so important.

Rachael Fauss, senior policy analyst with Reinvent Albany, said there are ways to make it easier for judicial decisions to be published.

"Sometimes oral decisions are given, so a judge will say what the decision is and there's a transcript of that," Fauss said. "So, the transcripts could get published in the cases where there is not a written decision."

The report's recommendations include passing a bill requiring written decisions by criminal court judges to be publicly available online. This legislation will be introduced during the 2024 session of the New York State Legislature.


get more stories like this via email