Human rights group protests inequities in children getting tried as adults
Middlesex and Passaic counties have the highest rates statewide of prosecuting children as adults in New Jersey. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor)
County prosecutors in New Jersey play an outsized role in whether children accused of serious crimes get tried as adults, with juveniles facing potentially vastly different sentences and treatment depending on where they're prosecuted, according to a new report by Human Rights Watch.
Many states, including New Jersey, require a judicial waiver for a child to be tried as an adult, and under that system, judges weigh evidence presented by both sides before deciding whether a case belongs in juvenile or adult court.
But New Jersey's waiver statute 'sidelines judicial oversight' by giving so much discretion and power to prosecutors that they essentially call the shots, according to Amanda Leavell, a Human Rights Watch researcher who authored the report.
That has created a 'justice by geography effect,' Leavell said. Middlesex and Passaic counties have the highest youth waiver rates statewide, with Passaic's rate seven times higher than nearby Union County, Leavell found.
'Your fate is basically completely dependent on how harshly the prosecutor is going to pursue your case,' she said.
Black youth also get disproportionately waived to the adult system, Leavell found, perpetuating racial disparities in a prison system that already has among the highest racial disparities in the nation.
When juveniles get waived to adult court, they move to a system that prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation and into adult prisons where they face higher risks of violence, trauma, and recidivism, causing lifelong harm, Leavell added. She found they also languish in pretrial detention longer because of lengthy hearings and the reset of trial timelines triggered by their transfer to adult court.
New Jersey's waiver statute applies to juveniles aged 15 to 17 who are accused of homicide, sexual assault, certain drug or firearm-related crimes, and several other serious crimes.
Leavell made more than 20 recommendations for changes to legislators, county prosecutors, the Attorney General's Office, the Juvenile Justice Commission, and more.
She urged lawmakers to pass legislation that would reduce and ultimately end the prosecution of children in adult court. Until then, lawmakers should restore and strengthen judicial oversight of waiver motions and pass legislation that would require hearings in which prosecutors who want to try a child in adult court must prove that child could not be rehabilitated in the juvenile system, she recommended.
She also urged the state attorney general to review and assume decision-making authority over waiver requests in counties that send youth into the adult system at significantly higher rates than other counties. She thinks the attorney general should issue statewide guidelines that ensure waiver decisions are uniformly applied across counties and emphasize prosecution in the juvenile justice system as the default approach.
The attorney general and Juvenile Justice Commission should publicly report on juvenile waivers, as they are required by law to do every two years, on a more timely basis and include demographic information, charges, case outcomes, and other details, she added. Those agencies' most recent report — posted online Tuesday, the same day Leavell issued her report — was a half-year late. The data in the biennial reports is also several years old; this week's report examines juvenile waivers in 2020 and 2021.
Tara Oliver, a spokeswoman at the Attorney General's Office, said they will review the report's findings.
'Our office is committed to ensuring public safety while also treating people fairly. This is what we have done for two decades across administrations,' she said in a statement.
Leavell also called on county prosecutors to seek waivers to adult court only as a last resort, considering a youth's developmental capacity, trauma history, disability status, and potential for rehabilitation. Prosecutors and judges should undergo regular training on adolescent brain development and the effects of trauma on youth, she added.
Middlesex County Prosecutor Yolanda Ciccone, who heads the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, did not respond to a request for comment.
Former New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin applauded the findings, saying uniformity in any system is important.
'It is a basic concept of justice that similarly situated people should be treated the same,' Albin said in a statement. 'One problem with having prosecutors be the primary decision-maker in waiver cases is a lack of uniformity across the state. You have 21 counties and 21 prosecutors, and they may have 21 different philosophies about how to prosecute waiver cases.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Popular gas station could catch a break as feds move to drop lawsuit
A few very popular gas stations have loyal followings in various parts of the United States. Wawa and 7-Eleven are two of them, and Sheetz is the third. While 7-Eleven is primarily known for its Slurpees and Wawa for its subs and sandwiches, Sheetz offers a variety of made-to-order food, a coffee shop with Sheetz Brothers Coffee, and (in some locations) even a beer cave. The gas station is also generally open 24/7 in most areas, so you know you can count on Sheetz at any hour. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Sheetz has, however, been facing some legal problems lately. Specifically, the gas station was being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The lawsuit against the company was initiated in April of 2024 under the Biden Administration and has proceeded through the court system. Now, however, Sheetz may catch a break. That's because on Friday, federal authorities moved to drop the case. Sheetz was being sued by the Biden EEOC for racial discrimination. Specifically, the case was based on a legal theory called disparate impact. Under this legal theory, a company can be held liable for discrimination if it puts a facially neutral policy in place that has a disproportionately negative or disqualifying effect on a protected group. In this particular case, the policy that Sheetz put in place was a prohibition against hiring anyone who failed a criminal background check. The EEOC under President Biden found this policy to be discriminatory against multiracial job applicants, as well as against Black and Native American applicants. The agency determined this after finding that 14.5% of Black job applicants failed the screening and were denied employment, while Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%, and 13.5% of multiracial job seekers were unable to gain employment with the gas station. Related: DoorDash accused of purposely misleading its customers "Federal law mandates that employment practices causing a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications must be shown by the employer to be necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular jobs at issue," Debra M. Lawrence, an attorney for the EECO, said in a statement at the time. Lawrence added that even when the company proved the rule was necessary, "the practice remains unlawful if there is an alternative practice available that is comparably effective in achieving the employer's goals but causes less discriminatory effect." The EEOC moved last Friday to drop the case against Sheetz, filing its motion in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The agency cited new executive orders put in place by the Trump Administration directing the agency to deprioritize the use of disparate impact discrimination when deciding which anti-discrimination cases to pursue. Related: Beloved Mexican restaurant closing iconic location after 63 years Dropping the case is part of the administration's broader effort to change how civil rights claims are handled - this includes going after Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, terminating EEOC workers, and redirecting agency heads to implement his agenda. It does not necessarily mean the lawsuit against Sheetz will be unable to proceed at all, as a Black worker terminated from his job at a Pennsylvania Sheetz filed a motion in federal court Thursday to intervene in the case and move forward with a class action lawsuit, independently of the EEOC. In its motion, the EEOC also asked the court to delay dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential plaintiffs to intervene. Still, without the federal government pursuing the case, Sheetz may stand a better chance of resolving outstanding claims quickly through settlement or fighting accusations of wrongdoing made by private plaintiffs. More Restaurants: Beloved Mexican restaurant closing iconic location after 63 yearsMajor restaurant chain quietly closes several locationsIconic restaurant closing its doors after 32 years It's undoubtedly better not to have the full power of a government agency against you when you're being sued, so the EEOC's motion to dismiss likely comes as a welcome relief to the popular gas station. Related: Veteran fund manager unveils eye-popping S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
Widespread Interactions With Criminal Justice System Cast Long Shadow On Retirement Savings
A lot of people get arrested and convicted in the United States. Those interactions with the criminal justice system cast long finacial shadows. This is true for retirement savings as well as calculations based on recently released Federal Reserve data show. People who have been arrested and convicted end up with lower retirement savings than people who have not been taken into custody. A recent Federal Reserve survey on people's economic situation includes a series of questions on whether people have been taken into police custody, convicted and served time. The same survey, the Fed's Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) also asks questions about retirement savings. Interactions with the criminal justice system are fairly widespread. It is necessary to combine data years to make sure that sample sizes are large enough. In 2023 and 2024, 13.7% of adults said that they had been taken into custody in the past, 6.0% said that they had been convicted and 1.8% of people indicated that they served time. The respective shares of people are higher for Black and Latino people than for White people, with 17.3% of African-Americans and 17.9% of Latinos in 2023 and 2024 saying that they had been taken into custody, but only 12.5% of White adults said that this was the case. A lot of these racial differences are not explained by differences in criminal behavior, but rather, are the result of structural biases against Black and Latino adults. These interactions with the criminal justice system make it more difficult for people to save for retirement. For one, those who have a criminal record will face more labor market obstacles than those without a criminal record. They will work in less stable jobs and receive lower wages. This means that they will have a harder time qualifying for retirement benefits and have less money to put away towards retirement. In addition, people who have been arrested and convicted will have legal fees, but also face other economic challenges, for instance, in renting a house or apartment. They face higher costs, impeding their retirement savings and necessitating more liquidity in their retirement savings, for example, by withdrawing money pre-retirement or taking out loans on their retirement accounts. All of these factors could make it less likely that people have retirement accounts to begin with and more likely that the savings in those accounts grow more slowly. Earlier data already showed differences in retirement savings by interactions with the criminal justice system. Specifically, 48.4% of people that did not have a family member in prison or jail had any retirement savings in 2019, while this was the case for only 37.7% of people with an incarcerated family member. Recent Federal Reserve data for 2023 and 2024 provide additional details on the link between interactions with the criminal justice system and retirement savings. The data allow for a separation of respondents into three distinct groups: Those who were taken into police custody and were convicted, those who were taken into police custody, but were not convicted, and those who were not taken into police custody. The SHED also includes a number of key measures for retirement savings. It is, for example, possible to create one indicator whether people have any retirement benefit – a 401(k) type account, an IRA or a DB pension. It is also possible to create another indicator whether people increased the liquidity in their retirement savings by borrowing from their retirement accounts, withdrawing money from a retirement account or reducing their retirement account contributions. These actions all slow the growth of retirement savings as people need more liquidity. People who had any interactions with the retirement system fare worse in terms of retirement savings (see Figure below). The share of people who worked for somebody else and who were at least 25 years old with a retirement benefit is lower among those who were convicted (65.6%) than was the case for people who were taken into custody, but who were not convicted (76.5%), which was in turn much lower than the share of working people who were never taken into custody (84.5%). Having been convicted, regardless of whether the person served time or not, reduces the chance of having a retirement benefit by almost 19 percentage points, compared to somebody, who had never been taken into custody. And, those who were convicted also need more liquidity in their retirement accounts (see Figure above). In particular, 25.6% of those working for somebody else who were at least 25 years old and who had a retirement account also took out a pension loan, withdrew money before retirement or lowered their retirement plan contributions in 2023 and 2024. The respective shares for the other two groups were 16.2% and 16.0%. Having been convicted thus also goes along with a greater need for liquidity in retirement accounts, which could slow the growth of retirement savings. A substantial share of Americans are arrested and convicted. Convictions can cast a long financial shadow over people's lives. This includes negative correlations between arrests and convictions, on the one hand, and retirement savings, on the other hand. Those who have been arrested and convicted are much less likely to have any retirement plan, for instance. Financial insecurity follows criminal convictions for some time.
Boston Globe
9 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's latest manufactured crisis has Los Angeles in its grip
Advertisement And it's hard to imagine them voting to trample local local enforcement. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But then this administration has been just spoiling for a confrontation — especially in Los Angeles, with presidential advisers like And the president threw gasoline on the fire. Even as more demonstrators took to the streets, Advertisement Now there is no excuse for violence on the streets of any American city — and burning Waymo robot-driven cabs is hardly a good image for those with legitimate concerns about tactics used by immigration forces. The initial demonstrations were touched off by immigration raids at a garment factory and But throughout the weekend there was also no evidence that state and local police were incapable of dealing with the situation without the unasked-for federal intervention. In fact, some These are not the LA riots of 1992 in the wake of the verdict acquitting police officers of beating a Black man, Rodney King. Some Trump has long been the master of the manufactured crisis — the kind he has repeatedly used to justify broad use of executive powers. The president had barely finished taking the oath of office, when he declared a crisis at the border, requiring an Then there was the declaration of an equally nonexistent In April, with the Advertisement But by calling out the National Guard in California, on his own initiative and under false pretenses, Trump has entered new and more dangerous territory. 'The people who are causing the problems are bad people, they are insurrectionists,' Trump The president has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act but instead is using a section of the US Code on Armed Services ( That certainly explains Trump's escalating rhetoric and that of his administration, but it is an allegation that at the end of the day would have to be proven in court. 'Federal law enforcement officers were attacked by violent radicals and illegal criminals waving foreign flags because Governor Newsom was too weak to protect the city,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt Those 'foreign flags' were evidence not of an 'invasion' but for many Mexican-Americans in LA, But for this administration there is no detail that can't be used to distort the truth. 'Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion,' Advertisement Sure, Trump has long had it in for California, threatening to But the truly horrifying thing about Trump's current move is that it could happen to each and every state in the nation — or, more likely, to each and every Democratic state, especially when truth is so irrelevant to the Trump administration and facts are so fungible. The other danger is that having normalized the deployment of troops during manufactured crises, Trump will feel empowered to use them in even more forceful or aggressive ways if and when the nation faces actual crises. California's political leaders will not be fighting this battle on behalf of the rule of law alone. It's our fight too, and it won't be the last. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
