The sounds of silence.(director's memo)(cases of juvenile offenders violates children's rights)

In preparing for the theme of privatization for this issue of Policy and Practice, a recent court case in Luzerne County, Pa., struck a chord within me. On Feb. 12, former Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan pled guilty in federal court to accepting $2.6 million in kickbacks in exchange for placing juvenile offenders into privately operated detention centers. While clearly the exception, the circumstances of this case highlight the potential risks of contracting core public services to for profit entities without sufficient oversight and internal controls. As part of this elaborate fraudulent scheme, these judges exercised their unchecked authority to close an existing licensed public detention center in favor of entering into a lucrative long-term contract with a new private provider. They collected a bounty for each youth they jailed.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

These youth were often held on relatively minor charges as first offenders against the recommendation of the Probation Office. Many were not afforded their constitutional right to legal counsel. According to a recent class-action suit filed on behalf of victims and complainants by the Juvenile Law Center in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, youth were routinely jailed for such crimes as shoplifting, graffiti, school fights, hazing, writing a prank note about a school official, stealing loose change from an open car, and trespassing into an unlocked, empty building. The suit alleges that Ciavarella even locked up a 10-year-old girl. Many of these proceedings lasted only a few minutes and the children were then handcuffed and herded to detention without being able to speak to their parents. Pennsylvania juvenile law is very clear that incarceration is only to be used as a last resort when the public safety is at risk, or if other rehabilitative efforts have failed.

What made this case so egregious is not only the blatant disregard for the well-being of children that was allowed to exist for so long, but the code of silence that apparently existed within their court system. While these judges benefited themselves by railroading children to private for-profit detention centers, a district attorney and other court and police officials were present every time the children's constitutional rights were denied. Jacqueline Musto Carroll, the current Luzerne County district attorney, even defended these practices in opposition to a lawsuit brought by the Juvenile Law Center seeking to remove jurisdiction from this corrupt system. Carroll subsequently added that "it's perfectly legal for someone to waive their right to an attorney." I found Carroll's argument insensitive, whimsical and arbitrary. Pardon me, the reason that a juvenile court exists is the presumption that youth are not yet capable of weighing the risks and consequences of adult legal decisions. Where were the public defenders in all of this, the police, the advocates, the probation office, etc.? Even more troubling was the failure of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to intervene when presented ...