Louisiana's juvenile crime amendment draws bipartisan opposition, district attorney support
Voters leave the Bricolage Academy gym after casting their ballots in New Orleans, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Matthew Perschall for Louisiana Illuminator)
It's not everyday that conservative activist Chris Alexander finds himself on the same side of a political fight as the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. But a ballot measure that could make it easier to send minors to adult prisons has brought him together with many liberal advocates.
Alexander runs the Louisiana Citizen Advocacy Group and produces a podcast called 'State of Freedom.' He's known for his fights against vaccine mandates and denying the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
More recently, however, he has been campaigning against Constitutional Amendment 3 on the March 29 ballot. The proposal would give the Louisiana Legislature more authority to expand the list of crimes for which a person under 17 could be sent to an adult prison.
Persons age 14-16 can already be treated as adults in the criminal justice system when accused of one of 16 serious offenses, including murder, rape and armed robbery. If Amendment 3 passes, lawmakers would have the authority to add other felonies to that list without voters' permission.
'It's going to do nothing to reduce crime in Louisiana. Nothing,' Alexander said in an interview last week.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A menagerie of groups who oppose Amendment 3 repeated that sentiment ahead of early voting, which started Saturday. They range from the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, one of the state's largest unions, to the Leaders for a Better Louisiana, made up of business leaders.
Among the most surprising opponents are eight retired Louisiana juvenile justice and prison officials, including two former heads of the state juvenile justice system, a previous director of probation and parole services, and a retired adult prison warden. They released a statement this week encouraging people to vote against Amendment 3.
'The professionals in corrections that worked in this field do not think this is a good idea,' said Mary Livers, former deputy secretary of juvenile justice under Gov. Bobby Jindal. 'We do not want to send more kids to adult prisons. That may get people elected but it's not good policy.' But Gov. Jeff Landry, the most powerful elected official in the state, is personally backing the amendment. He won his 2024 campaign by promising to bring a tough-on-crime approach back to Louisiana and capitalized on a crime spike during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase funding for law enforcement and lengthen prison sentences. Last week in Terrebonne Parish, the governor encouraged people at a business group luncheon to vote in favor of Amendment 3, characterizing it as another step toward increasing public safety.
'[R]ight now on the ballot, there are four amendments, and one of those amendments is Amendment 3 that is going to further aid us,' he said.
But opponents argue there is no evidence that putting younger teenagers in adult prisons makes communities safer as Landry claims.
The amendment opponents also point to scientific studies that show a person's brain doesn't fully develop until their mid-20s, meaning younger people who commit crimes have far more capacity for rehabilitation. Teenagers' lack of brain development also explains why they exhibit poor judgment and commit offenses they might not do once they reach adulthood. The U.S. Supreme Court has found this brain science so convincing, they ruled in multiple cases to limit criminal sentences for minors. The justices abolished the death penalty and life sentences for all crimes except murder for defendants in their adolescence.
Still, Amendment 3 has one powerful group of supporters: The Louisiana District Attorneys Association has endorsed the proposal, executive director Zach Daniels said.
Current restrictions in the Louisiana Constitution make it difficult for state lawmakers to respond to modern public safety concerns, Daniels said. He considers the list of crimes that allow someone under 17 to be transferred into adult outdated, and said lawmakers need to be able to revise it without having to go through a statewide vote each time.
'None of that should have been in the constitution to begin with,' Jefferson Parish Sheriff Joe Lopinto, who also supports the amendment, said in an interview.
Amendment supporters point to carjacking as an example of an offense that should be added to the list of crimes.
State Rep. Debbie Villio, a Republican who sponsored the legislation to get Amendment 3 on the ballot, said in January that she would likely file a bill to expand the types of carjackings that could land a younger teen in adult prison if voters approve the measure.
Minors as young as 15 can already go to adult prison for carjacking with a weapon under the state's armed robbery statute. Villio wants to add carjacking 'by use of force or intimidation' — in other words without a weapon — to the list of crimes could get a younger minor transferred to adult prison.
Should that happen, 15- and 16-year-olds could face much longer sentences. An adult found guilty of carjacking without a weapon can be put in prison five to 20 years for an initial conviction, a maximum sentence four times longer than the current guidelines for people under 17.
Amendment opponents argue putting more teens into adult facilities will be expensive for the state. Teenagers are easily influenced by older prisoners and more vulnerable to coercion and threats, they maintain. It takes more prison staff and more money to keep them safe in adult correctional facilities, according to Kelly Ward, a retired warden who managed the David Wade Correctional Center in Homer who is against the amendment. The federal government also requires adult prisons to house minors separate from incarcerated adults.
'If you are going to spend money on additional resources, then why not take those resources and apply them into a juvenile system that is designed for that age group?' Ward said.
It's not clear there's a formal political campaign in support of Amendment 3.
Daniels said it was be left up to individual district attorneys to decide how much they want to campaign for the proposal. Landry, who has vast political resources, could put up money for a late advertising push if he wanted, but there isn't a high-profile effort to do so yet.
The amendment's opposition has a more visible public campaign two weeks out from the election. A large coalition of mostly left-leaning organizations has launched a 'No on 3' website and has paid for digital advertising, yard signs and direct mail pieces across the state. 'The Legislature is asking for a blank check to fill our adult jails and prisons with children,' said Sara Omojola, a criminal justice advocate and coordinator for the 'No on 3' coalition. 'We can't really trust them with that judgement and that power.'
At least two influential, right-leaning groups working to pass the three other amendments on the March 29 ballot are sitting out the Amendment 3 fight. The Pelican Institute, a conservative think tank focused on Louisiana, is encouraging its followers to vote yes on every other proposal except Amendment 3, for which it hasn't taken a position. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry also announced its support for every amendment except for No. 3 this month.
Will Greene, LABI's CEO and president, said the group decided not to take a stance because the amendment didn't touch upon the group's main mission to improve Louisiana's business climate.
Editor Greg LaRose contributed to this report.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
23 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How the Vatican manages money and where Pope Leo XIV might find more
VATICAN CITY — The world's smallest country has a big budget problem. The Vatican doesn't tax its residents or issue bonds. It primarily finances the Catholic Church's central government through donations that have been plunging, ticket sales for the Vatican Museums, as well as income from investments and an underperforming real estate portfolio. The last year the Holy See published a consolidated budget, in 2022, it projected $878 million, with the bulk paying for embassies around the world and Vatican media operations. In recent years, it hasn't been able to cover costs. That leaves Pope Leo XIV facing challenges to drum up the funds needed to pull his city-state out of the red. Anyone can donate money to the Vatican, but the regular sources come in two main forms. Canon law requires bishops around the world to pay an annual fee, with amounts varying and at bishops' discretion 'according to the resources of their dioceses.' U.S. bishops contributed over one-third of the $22 million collected annually under the provision from 2021-2023, according to Vatican data. The other main source of annual donations is more well-known to ordinary Catholics: Peter's Pence, a special collection usually taken on the last Sunday of June. From 2021-2023, individual Catholics in the U.S. gave an average $27 million (23.7 million euros) to Peter's Pence, more than half the global total. American generosity hasn't prevented overall Peter's Pence contributions from cratering. After hitting a high of $101 million in 2006, contributions hovered around $75 million during the 2010's then tanked to $47 million during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many churches were closed. Donations remained low in the following years, amid revelations of the Vatican's bungled investment in a London property, a former Harrod's warehouse that it hoped to develop into luxury apartments. The scandal and ensuing trial confirmed that the vast majority of Peter's Pence contributions had funded the Holy See's budgetary shortfalls, not papal charity initiatives as many parishioners had been led to believe. Peter's Pence donations rose slightly in 2023 and Vatican officials expect more growth going forward, in part because there has traditionally been a bump immediately after papal elections. The Vatican bank and the city state's governorate, which controls the museums, also make annual contributions to the pope. As recently as a decade ago, the bank gave the pope around $62.7 million a year to help with the budget. But the amounts have dwindled; the bank gave nothing specifically to the pope in 2023, despite registering a net profit of $34.2 million, according to its financial statements. The governorate's giving has likewise dropped off. Some Vatican officials ask how the Holy See can credibly ask donors to be more generous when its own institutions are holding back. Leo will need to attract donations from outside the U.S., no small task given the different culture of philanthropy, said the Rev. Robert Gahl, director of the Church Management Program at Catholic University of America's business school. He noted that in Europe there is much less of a tradition (and tax advantage) of individual philanthropy, with corporations and government entities doing most of the donating or allocating designated tax dollars. Even more important is leaving behind the 'mendicant mentality' of fundraising to address a particular problem, and instead encouraging Catholics to invest in the church as a project, he said. Speaking right after Leo's installation ceremony in St. Peter's Square, which drew around 200,000 people, Gahl asked: 'Don't you think there were a lot of people there that would have loved to contribute to that and to the pontificate?' In the U.S., donation baskets are passed around at every Sunday Mass. Not so at the Vatican. The Vatican has 4,249 properties in Italy and 1,200 more in London, Paris, Geneva and Lausanne, Switzerland. Only about one-fifth are rented at fair market value, according to the annual report from the APSA patrimony office, which manages them. Some 70% generate no income because they house Vatican or other church offices; the remaining 10% are rented at reduced rents to Vatican employees. In 2023, these properties only generated $39.9 million in profit. Financial analysts have long identified such undervalued real estate as a source of potential revenue. But Ward Fitzgerald, the president of the U.S.-based Papal Foundation, which finances papal charities, said the Vatican should also be willing to sell properties, especially those too expensive to maintain. Many bishops are wrestling with similar downsizing questions as the number of church-going Catholics in parts of the U.S. and Europe shrinks and once-full churches stand empty. Toward that end, the Vatican recently sold the property housing its embassy in Tokyo's high-end Sanbancho neighborhood, near the Imperial Palace, to a developer building a 13-story apartment complex, according to the Kensetsu News trade journal. Yet there has long been institutional reluctance to part with even money-losing properties. Witness the Vatican announcement in 2021 that the cash-strapped Fatebenefratelli Catholic hospital in Rome, run by a religious order, would not be sold. Pope Francis simultaneously created a Vatican fundraising foundation to keep it and other Catholic hospitals afloat. 'They have to come to grips with the fact that they own so much real estate that is not serving the mission of the church,' said Fitzgerald, who built a career in real estate private equity.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
OPEC head lashes out at net-zero targets, tells Calgary audience oil demand will keep growing
There is no peak in oil demand on the horizon and global demand could surpass 120 million barrels per day by 2050, says the head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Secretary general Haitham Al Ghais also took aim at net-zero targets during his keynote address at the Global Energy Show Canada in Calgary on Tuesday, and reiterated his previous criticism of the International Energy Agency (IEA)'s prediction that global oil demand could peak before 2030. He said global demand for all forms of energy will increase by 24 per cent between now and 2050. 'OPEC's forecasts are not based on ideology. They are based on data and analysis of data,' he said. 'And they clearly indicate that oil will remain an integral part of the energy mix, at around 30 per cent, still in 2050. Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, there is no peak in oil demand on the horizon.' Total global demand for oil in 2024 was a bit less than 103 million bbl/d, according to IEA figures. Al Ghais also praised Canada as a major global oil supplier and said Alberta and OPEC share similar perspectives on technology and innovation. He is set to meet with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on the sidelines of the Global Energy Show this week. 'This will provide an opportunity to improve our understanding of the recent changes to the OPEC+ supply philosophy, ensuring Alberta is prepared for any implications it may have on global oil production and budgets,' a spokesman for Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean said. Global oil prices plunged to a four-year low in April after OPEC and its allies surprised markets by hiking output by 411,000 barrels per day for May — an amount that was three times more than what was previously planned for the month — in a move that coincided with the launch of United States President Donald Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs on trading partners. Similar-sized production hikes planned for June and July continue to depress oil prices as OPEC+ accelerates plans to revive production that has been off-line for more than two years. The eight OPEC+ members aim to gradually restore around 2.2 million barrels per day of production that was idled in 2022 in order to stabilize prices amid fears of a COVID-19-induced economic slowdown. The latest hikes are also aimed at punishing overproduction by OPEC+ members Kazakhstan and Iraq, though Bloomberg News has also reported that Saudi Arabia is seeking to regain lost market share. More to come… Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Forget about the Fed's dual mandate—this investment advisor says they've added a third mandate, and won't be cutting rates anytime soon
After running interest rates near zero for a decade and a half, the Federal Reserve has turned cautious and is unlikely to cut anytime soon, according to Jeff Klingelhofer, a managing director and portfolio manager for Aristotle Pacific Capital. That's because the central bank is concerned about social stability and inequality following its brush with record-high inflation—and low rates make inequality worse. Most everyone knows about the Federal Reserve's dual mandate. Set by Congress, the charge for the U.S. central bank is twofold: Create the conditions for stable prices (i.e., low inflation) and maximum employment. (The third mandate—to moderate long-term interest rates—flows naturally out of keeping inflation steady.) Increasingly, though, the third mandate is changing, according to Jeff Klingelhofer, a managing director and portfolio manager for Aristotle Pacific Capital, an investment advisory. And that new task is social cohesion. It's a tough call for an entity that has seemed somewhat battered in recent years, bruised by its failure to catch COVID-era inflation in time and, increasingly, in a fight with the president of the United States, who is pressing on the Fed's nominally independent head to lower interest rates. 'It's out with the old—financial stability—and in with the new: social stability,' Klingelhofer told Fortune. Klingelhofer notes that, before the 2007–2009 Global Financial Crisis, the Fed used to be very proactive in raising interest rates, hiking them well before any sign of inflation. Post-crisis, when unemployment was stubbornly slow to fall, critics accused the Fed of hiking rates too quickly and stymieing the recovery. (The Fed's first rate cut came in late 2015, with unemployment at 5% and the Fed's preferred measure of inflation at just 1%.) Inflation didn't come close to hitting the Fed's 2% target for seven years after the hike. Years later, two Fed governors admitted they got the balance wrong and should have kept rates lower for longer. In 2020, that shifted. The Fed, by keeping rates low, 'learned the biggest wage gains went to the lowest earners,' Klingelhofer said. 'Coming out of COVID, the third mandate was social stability, compression of the wage gap.' But the central bank also got burned with its prediction that inflation would be 'transitory.' That miss, coupled with the fastest and steepest rate-hiking cycle in modern history, has made the central bank loath to move too quickly on cutting rates this time. This shift is evident in the tenor of Chair Jerome Powell's speeches, starting at Jackson Hole, Wyo., in 2022. 'Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone,' Powell said in 2022, adding that the Fed was 'taking forceful and rapid steps to moderate demand…and to keep inflation expectations anchored.' 'We will keep at it until we are confident the job is done,' he said. That experience has pushed the Fed from proactive to reactive, Klingelhofer said. 'They'll need to see inflation below 2%, and think it'll stay there.' If a recession hits, 'I don't think the Fed will step in as they have in the past,' he added. 'Maybe if it's a deep recession, with high unemployment, and inflation falls below 2% dramatically—maybe.' Historically low interest rates had another effect—they redistributed wealth upward by encouraging asset bubbles. In this way, as a recent body of economic research has shown, low rates have contributed to skyrocketing wealth inequality. Low interest rates tend to juice stock-market appreciation, benefiting the 10% of the population that owns more than 90% of stock, and encourage investors to create novel assets as they chase bigger returns. These benefits accrue most to those who have the biggest financial assets—i.e., the wealthiest—while doing little for the poor. And while low rates encourage higher employment, 'the 1% of Americans who own 40% of all the assets just get tremendous gains before that first job is created for the middle class,' said Christopher Leonard, who criticized the Fed's ultra-low-rate policies in The Lords of Easy Money, a 2022 book describing this dynamic. In this way, he said, the Fed exacerbates the gap between the ultrarich and the rest of us, which he called 'the defining economic dysfunction of our time.' It's another argument against cutting rates, in addition to the risk of reigniting inflation—whose burdens, as Powell repeatedly notes, '[fall] heaviest on those who are least able to bear them.' 'The alchemy of low interest rates is over,' Klingelhofer says. He isn't convinced the Fed has that much influence on rates like the 10-year Treasury, which closely influences mortgage rates. These bonds trade in international markets where investors buy or sell them based on how they perceive the risks of U.S. debt. 'Where should 10-year Treasuries be? With inflation at 3%, and the government running 6%–7% deficits, 4.5% feels roughly correct,' he said. In fact, some economists say the Fed cutting rates would be perceived as a recession indicator—and would have the opposite effect, sending bond yields and interest rates soaring. As Redfin economics research head Chen Zhao told Fortune previously, 'the Fed only controls that one Fed funds rate. Everything else is determined by markets.' This story was originally featured on
