Teenagers really aren't adults. Really.

What is the point of having a juvenile justice system if we're just going to waive every kid accused of a serious felony up to adult court anyway? There is such a societal disconnect in terms of how we view teenagers, kids. When we're willing to consider them kids and when we're not.

There isn't a state in this country where anyone under the age of 18 can be bound by a contract, regardless of how smart that teenager might be. (The exception, of course, is for any teenager who is officially declared an emancipated minor by a court, but those kids are few and far between.) Child pornography laws almost universally apply to anyone under 18. (Honestly, I don't know of any laws that have a younger legal age, but the lawyer in me says "almost" because I haven't researched every single state.) Nowhere can someone under 18 vote or smoke. Heck, you have to be 3 years older even than that to drink legally. No exceptions.

But if you're 15 and pull the trigger on a gun, an awful lot of jurisdictions will push, and push hard, to treat you like an adult. See, eg., this case. It makes no sense. And it seems that the more serious the crime, the likelier prosecutors are to push for adult status. Which, if you think about it honestly, is pretty much the opposite of how it should be.

In so many areas of the law, we adults all acknowledge how dumb teenagers can be. We are willing to remember what stupid mistakes we made as teens. How utterly incapable we were of thinking about long-term consequences. When we're 15 and do something dumb and impulsive, we don't think about how that will affect ourselves and others when we're 40. We just don't. And when it comes to contracts or sex or drinking or voting, we as a society take a no-exceptions approach to protecting dumb-ass teens from themselves. Regardless of the specific circumstances. Regardless of the specific kid's intelligence level, education, etc. We just know that we know better than idiot teens, even really smart teens. Because even really smart teens are bundles of crazed hormones with no developed impulse control.

So why are we as a society (and by we, I mean people other than me, because I would treat all teens as juveniles) so willing to forget our natural tendency to treat all teenagers as idiots who can't control themselves when it comes to criminal law? Yes, kids who are 15, 16, 17, are old enough to have some sense of right and wrong. But so are kids who are 8 and we don't treat them like adults when it comes to criminal prosecution. The point with teenagers isn't whether they have some abstract sense of right and wrong, but rather whether they have fully developed impulse control (they don't) or the ability to appreciate the real, lasting, long-term consequences of their actions (they don't). It's because we get this about teens that we protect them from their impulsive actions if they try to enter into contracts or engage in some sexual activities. There is no intellectually honest reason for not also protecting them in some way from their impulsive actions that violate criminal laws, even if those actions result in serious, lasting harm to others. The harm resulting from the action doesn't change the fact that the act itself was done by a dumbass teenager.

Treating kids like adults based on the seriousness of the resulting harm doesn't jibe with the point of treating kids differently in the first place, which is that kids don't have the brain function necessary to fully appreciate the possible consequences (aka harms) of their actions!

In Sarah's World, the utopia where I am the benevolent dictator in charge of everything (I truly think you could all trust me to make decisions that would be in your best interests (and you'd all be really well dressed), though I don't blame you for not wanting to live under even the most benevolent and wise of dictators), those teenagers who were tried as adults would be as few and far between as emancipated minors are. And I wouldn't use the nature of their crimes when considering whether teens should be tried as adults. I would only look at the particular teen, that teen's brain development, maturity, ability to articulate consequences. Because looking at the act itself, and the act's resulting harm, is nonsensical when what we're supposed to be recognizing is that kids can't be expected to control their actions in the same way adults can and can't be expected to comprehend the life-long consequences of those actions.

But I'm not in charge and "tough on crime" is in, so kids who would be protected from contracts they had entered into or sexual relationships they willingingly engaged in will continue to be treated as sternly as 40 year-old adults when they pick up a gun, intellectual honesty be damned.

Just so you know, I take client confidentiality pretty seriously. If there are degrees of ethical rules, that one would be the top dog. Well that and the rules against monkeying with client money. But I'm a public defender, so I don't deal with money. So the confidentiality is my big one. It really should be for any criminal defense attorney because if our clients don't trust us, we can't do our jobs.

I don't talk about my clients. I don't talk about the facts of their cases and all the things that didn't make it into the public record. I never, ever share my opinions about my clients, their cases, etc. I will talk over legal issues with other defenders, of course, because talking through issues makes them better. But the really good, juicy stuff?  I have to keep my mouth shut.

Can I just tell you how frustrating it is not to be able to talk about this thing that consumes the majority of one's waking hours?! I mean, I'm not like a volcano that's gonna blow any day now. I will continue to maintain my clients' confidentiality. But, man, there are days when I seriously want to hire a therapist or hire someone on as a consultant for an hour or two just so I can unload.

Maricopa County again

Is there ever positive, encouraging news coming out of Maricopa County, Arizona? Actually, it is getting better as a few of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's closest allies have started to suffer the consequences of working with the most corrupt sheriff in the county. But Sheriff Joe himself is still in charge.

Today, I saw this reminder that Maricopa County still has some work to do. An inmate whose bail had been paid somehow wound up dead in the jail. His mother saw his body and swears it was covered in bruises. The jail told his mother he choked on a peanut butter sandwich, but since he was allergic to peanut butter, she doesn't believe that version of events.

I'm sure inmates die at jails all over. Maybe not inmates who should no longer be inmates because they have already been bailed out. And I'm sure families are always really upset and want answers. And sometimes because the loved one's body is covered in unexplained bruises. But somehow this just stands out more, feels worse because it happened in Maricopa County, on Sheriff Joe's watch. That guy is just bad news and he needs to go. Hasn't the camel's back broken yet?

Fox News and the New York Post have gotten their collective panties in a twist because a public school principal has refused to allow kids to sing the Lee Greenwood song "God Bless the USA" at a school event. You know, "and I'm proud to be an American..."

Only one part of this story offends me: the part where the song is described as a "beloved" ballad. Let's just get one thing straight. That song is terrible. It is awful, trite, cheesy dreck. My soul dies a little bit every time I'm forced to hear it. Oh, and the overtly religious message also offends me and has no place in a public school. And fairly mindless, chest-thumping "Go America" stuff just isn't my style. But, truly, my primary objection is how unbelievably awful that stupid song is.

Anyone who spares captive audiences from having to listen to that song is a hero in my book.

Oh great googily moogily. The current Kansas science standards are set to be revised in 2014. Which means that work on the revisions will begin soon. And today, the opening salvo was fired. A member of the state Board of Education has said he is "troubled" by our current standards. He wants standards that incorporate material questioning evolution.

Not that Ken Willard is a scientist, mind you. He sold insurance and has a degree in political science.

We in Kansas have already put up with this nonsense. We got a BoE who switched the standards on us years ago and made us the laughingstock of the nation. And Kansans didn't put up with it. We voted those rubes out and got the Board back on track to put science over dogma. (People outside of Kansas always seem to forget that part.) So I'm really not looking forward to having to deal with this nonsense again.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Kansas: the state of devolution

In which I wish for a kinder, gentler world

I'm kind of a crime junkie. And I'm kind of a web junkie. And, last but by no means least, I'm kind of a comments on crime news web site junkie. I can't help myself. Some people in the public have some really weird ideas about criminal justice. I find it instructive to read what prospective jurors have to say, how they think. Instructive and at times terrifying.

One of the things I find the most terrifying is how many people are willing, even eager, to write off criminals, just throw them away. Every story is filled with comments calling the suspect trash, POS, worthless, lowlife, scum. (And let's not pretend this is about internet anonymity, because it isn't. People say the same vile things when it's linked to their Facebook accounts. In fact, the FB comments are generally worse than the anonymous CNN ones.)

I don't get it. How people can be so mean and hateful and judgmental. How people can think any human being is a waste of space. Especially when the crimes they've committed (or are accused of) are really pretty minor. When the issue is really one of mental health or substance abuse or self-esteem. Call me a pollyanna, a bleeding heart, naive, ridiculous, or whatever else you can think of. But I don't think anyone is worthless. And I don't think that people who throw around names and descriptors and adjectives like that have any claim to the moral high ground. I also believe that people are more than the worst thing they've ever done. Even if that worst thing is triple homicide or rape of a child.

But when MTV's Teen Mom Amber, whose troubles have already resulted in her losing custody of her child, gets a 5 year prison sentence for drug crimes, someone (who I'm tempted to name because she wrote it on MSNBC's FB page) wants to see "how tough she is when she becomes someone else's bitch!" Someone else thinks "We have sunk pretty low as a society if we really care about this lowlife..." See, I always thought it was NOT caring about people that would be a sign of societal decline.


Does it really cost anyone anything to spare a little sympathy for this troubled young woman? To reserve judgement? To think she's probably not a totally worthless human being? I know that not everyone wants to do what I do and stand up with these people, advocate for them. I do it because someone has to. (It's a fundamental right that we're supposed to value in our society, after all.) And I do it because the sad reality is that so many of these people never have had anyone stand up for them before. Odds are that Amber's parents weren't great prizes who treasured her, showed her compassion, made her think she was worth anything. So would it kill the rest of us who had good parents or inner resources or for whatever other reason didn't go down the wrong path to still view those who do make mistakes, even big, criminal ones, with something less than total disdain, contempt, or hatred?


The Ambers of the world definitely need to face consequences for their actions. She definitely needs a little tough love. And it's probably best for her child that she doesn't have custody right now. And there are a lot of people who really do need to be in secure facilities so they can't hurt themselves or others. But it seems like an awful lot of people have gone so overboard on the tough thing and have forgotten to spare any room for the love part. I wish it would stop. I wish empathy and compassion would come back into vogue. I wish people would stop being proud of the idea that some people are trash. No one is worthless. And I think we'd all be better for it if we could live by that principle. 


Of course, the same people who would throw away their fellow humans would also think that the bleeding heart who would defend criminals (even a sad and pathetic one like Amber) is also vile scum just wasting space on this earth. So my hope for more kindness on earth is probably wasted on them. Sigh.

RHONY is back, so indulge me for a minute

If you really want to be a friend of mine, it is important that you agree with me on this one thing. Original Housewife of New York City LuAnn de Lesseps, aka "The Countess," is a truly horrible person.

She is rude and obnoxious and pushy and full of herself and condescending. In short, she's just a bitch. And at least on t.v., she never displays any of this class and elegance that she always proclaims she is full of when she's doing her confessional interviews.

I know, I know. I should be above watching this tripe and I should find better things to do with my life than sitting at home alone every night. Just leave me alone and let me have my silly t.v. shows. And agree with me that LuAnn sucks.