(*Taken from Juvenile In Justice: http://www.juvenile-in-justice.com/ )
The Problem: The School to Prison Pipeline
The
“school-to-prison pipeline” refers to the policies and practices that push
schoolchildren, especially our most at-risk children, out of classrooms and
into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.
The story of the school to prison pipeline begins with failing schools. With overcrowded classrooms, unqualified teachers, insufficient funding for special education, mental health, or up to date textbooks, schools do not meet the needs of the students in poor and vulnerable communities. testing aaccountability programs like "No Child Left Behind" create incentives for strugglging schools to force out struggling children in order to improve their numbers and secure much needed funding. As a result children are forced out or drop out.
As
harsh penalties for minor misbehavior become more pervasive, schools
increasingly ignore or bypass due process protections for suspensions and
expulsions.
Many schools become a pipeline gateway by putting police in charge of resolving conflicts in schools instead of school administrators. Police officers patrol school hallways, with little or no training about the special developmental processes of kids, and the skills necessary to work with youth. As a result children are far more likely to be arrested or cited to court at school and funneled into the Court system for disruptive behavior, rather than working out the problems in school without the legal system. The rise in school based arrestes is the quickest way from the classroom to jail, and exemplifies the criminalization of children.
In
North Carolina the age of adulthood for criminal responsibility is the age of
16. This means children ages 16, 17, 18 are charged as adults, incarcerated
with adults, and stigmatized as criminals for life.
Youth
who become involved in the juvenile justice system are often denied procedural
protections in the courts; in one state, up to 80% of court-involved children
do not have lawyers.
Students
who commit minor offenses may end up in secured detention if they violate
probation conditions prohibiting them from missing school or disobeying
teachers
Children of Color and children with mental health disabilities are disproportionately suspended, expelled or arrested for the same conduct as white students.
There are 1.7 Million cases of youth charged with delinquency offense each year in the United States, that is 4,600 per day.
On
any given day approximately 70,000 young people are in facilities each . (See ACLU National, http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline)
In North Carolina there are 216 suspensions for every 1,000 students enrolled. In some North Carolina counties, the suspension rate is as high as 600 per 1,000 students. During 2005, more than 3,300 pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students were suspended.
In North Carolina there are 216 suspensions for every 1,000 students enrolled. In some North Carolina counties, the suspension rate is as high as 600 per 1,000 students. During 2005, more than 3,300 pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students were suspended.
Why
is the suspension rate in North Carolina 56% higher than the national average? A
high school dropout is almost 9 times more likely than a high school graduate
to end up in jail or prison.
There is an amazing group called Hidden Voices in Durham, North Carolina collecting stories about the school to prison pipeline and putting them together in art exhibits and performances pieces to bring attention to this horrific and hidden problem. (http://hiddenvoices.org/pod/project/12 )Here is a short documentary sponsored in part by the North Carolina Central Law School about kids in custody, and solitary confinement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQu03atqxP8
Human Rights Framework for Children in Conflict with the Law*
(*Taken from a publication of ACLU and Human Rights Watch, Growing up Locked Down (http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/growing-locked-down-youth-solitary-confinement-jails-and-prisons-across-united ))
In November 1959, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which recognized that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” (http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp ) The United States was one of the 78 members of the UN General Assembly that voted unanimously to adopt the declaration. While the declaration is not binding law, since that time, the world’s governments, including the United States, have further elaborated, in treaties and other declarations, the rights of children accused of crimes.
The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the
United States became a party in 1992, specifically acknowledges the need for
special treatment of children in the criminal justice system and emphasizes the
importance of their rehabilitation.
(http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf
) Article 10 requires the separation of child offenders from adults and the provision
of treatment appropriate to their age and legal status. Article 14(4), which
was co-sponsored by the United States, requires that criminal procedures for
children charged with crimes “take account of the age and the desirability of
promoting their rehabilitation.” The
ICCPR emphasizes age-differentiated, positive measures for child offenders and
education, rehabilitation, and reintegration over punishment.
Both
the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture and Other, Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) prohibit “cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.”(CAT, http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp_e.pdf
) In addition, article 10 of the ICCPR
stipulates, “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” For treatment to be humane, it must be
appropriate to age and legal status. The vulnerability and immaturity of
juvenile offenders renders a wider range of treatment potentially cruel,
inhuman, or degrading, and such treatment, in turn, can have a much more
profound effect on the body and mind of a developing child than on an adult. It
is precisely because imprisonment is such an inherently severe sanction that governmental
decisions to impose it are subject to human rights constraints. The ICCPR
recognizes
that all persons (including young people) deprived of their liberty shall be treated
with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
When
the United States ratified the ICCPR, it attached a limiting reservation
providing that the policy and practice of the United States are generally in
compliance with and supportive of the Covenant’s provisions regarding treatment
of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the United States reserves
the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding
paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of article 10 and paragraph 4 of article 14. The
drafting history of this reservation indicates that it should be interpreted
narrowly. The reservation was intended to permit—on an “exceptional” basis—the
trial of children as adults and the incarceration of children and adults in the
same prison facilities. The United States, as a co-sponsor of Article 14, was
keenly aware of the breadth and scope of its language. There is nothing in its
reservation to suggest that the United States sought to reserve the right to
treat children as harshly as adults on a regular or frequent basis, or to
disregard the special needs and vulnerabilities of children. To the extent the reservation
is interpreted broadly, it risks creating a loophole for violations of children’s
basic rights. To be fully consistent with what it has agreed to elsewhere
regarding children’s rights, the United States should withdraw the reservation,
and refuse to use it to justify actions that otherwise would violate the ICCPR.
International
human rights law also affirms the right of family unity. The International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which the US has signed, but not yet ratified)
guarantees all persons a right to education and to the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health. (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx
) It guarantees all persons a right to education and to the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health.
The
Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), also states that young
people with disabilities, including mental disabilities (long-term mental
health problems) or intellectual disabilities (sometimes called developmental
disabilities), retain the right to full
enjoyment “of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, on an equal basis with
other [youth],” including when deprived of their liberty. (http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
)
Various
international standards provide additional detail regarding precisely how governments
should ensure that this range of rights be safeguarded in practice With regard
to solitary confinement, the United
Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh
Guidelines) describe punitive solitary confinement of young People under age 18
as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r112.htm
)
The
Committee on the Rights of the Child, which interprets the CRC, has also
suggested that the punitive solitary confinement of young people under age 18
is cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/
)
The
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty
reiterates this conclusion. (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r113.htm
)
Most
recently, the special rapporteur on torture, in his report to the General
Assembly, called for an absolute ban on solitary confinement for young people
under age 18: The Special Rapporteur
holds the view that the imposition of solitary confinement, of any duration, on
juveniles is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violates article 7 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 16 of the
Convention against Torture. This proposed absolute ban reflects an agreement
that solitary confinement is an affront to the humanity and vulnerability of
any child. The special rapporteur also called for an absolute ban on solitary
confinement of those with mental disabilities because the adverse effects are
especially significant for persons with serious mental health problems. Young
people under age 18 with mental disabilities are therefore doubly vulnerable,
given both their age and developmental needs and their disability. With regard
to the other deprivations experienced by young people in solitary confinement, international
standards similarly provide additional detail. (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/SRTorture/A-HRC-19-61.pdf
)
The
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice (the Beijing Rules), among other international standards, provide that
while in custody, adolescents “shall receive care, protection and all necessary
individual assistance,” which must extend to psychological, medical, and
physical care and be differentiated by age and gender-specific needs. (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/SRTorture/A-HRC-19-61.pdf
)
These standards emphasize education, family
contact, and access to developmentally-appropriate programming aimed at
supporting growth and at reintegrating young people into society. Domestic
professional standards suggest that adult facilities should not house young people
under age 18.
Children of Incarcerated Parents*
Finally, I attended a presentation by our group Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) on the issue of children of incarcerated parents.
(*Taken From Collateral Convicts: Children of Incarcerated Parents, http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/humanrights/women-in-prison/201203Analytical-DGD-Report-internet.pdf )
Children
of incarcerated parents, like children in general, are all individuals. Each
will have a differentv experience of and response to parental imprisonment, and
the unique situation of each child should be considered in all interactions
with them and decisions that affect them. But regardless of individual circumstances,
each child also has rights, including the right not to be discriminated against
based on the status or activities of their parents (Convention on the Rights of
the Child Article 2(2)), to the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and
administrative proceedings affecting them (Article 12(2)) and the right to have
their best interests be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them
(Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 3(1)). Unfortunately, children
of incarcerated parents are too easily ignored in the criminal justice system, which
deals with identifying and responding to individual guilt or innocence.
Children interacting with the criminal justice system (for example when
visiting incarcerated parents) are ‘reduced to a security risk assessment,
[while] within the broader community they are silent and silenced’.2 Only
rarely do ministries responsible for children see them as a group of children
exposed to particular challenges, meaning children of incarcerated parents
often fall into the gaps between government agencies. Children of incarcerated
parents exist in developing and developed countries all around the world, with certain
experiences and features common to many such children. For many, the removal
and detention of a parent is a negative experience, with implications for their
future wellbeing. The risks associated with parental incarceration have been
categorised into five main areas:
1.
Risk of deprivation of basic necessities and opportunities
2.
Risk of danger of secondary victimisation and depersonalisation
3.
Risk of deterioration of overall situation of a child
4.
Risk of distance from incarcerated parent
5.
Risk of descent into antisocial behaviour
More
specifically, children may experience impacts including: physical and mental
health impacts related to separation and other aspects of parental
incarceration; a risk of relationship breakdown; the possibility of having to
move house or be taken into care; financial difficulties; problems at school
(educational and behavioural); increased vulnerability to neglect, abuse and
victimisation; and difficulties in visiting incarcerated parents. ‘Finally it
increases the risk of a child’s own prospects, as they fear or distrust authority,
fail to receive the help they need, live in impoverished and unstable
circumstances, and begin to accept prison as “normal” – or as the only place
they can be with their mum or dad.’ Some of these problems will depend on
factors such as the nature of the offence and sentence, the age and maturity of
the child or which parent is imprisoned (children with incarcerated fathers are
more likely to have another parent care for them than is the case when mothers
are imprisoned). But as a group, children of incarcerated parents have faced
all the issues detailed above and more, and would benefit from considered and
timely interventions.
There
are many examples of good practice from around the world, often small and
inexpensive changes that make a major difference to the lives of children. Many
are detailed below. Unforunately, these steps too often depend on the interest
and involvement of individual prison staff or charities/non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), rather than institutionalised good policy and practice.
Conclusion: When a Child is Incarcerated, the Community has failed
I came away from these sessions possessed by the idea that we can free some of these children and offer them a better, more healthy life.
When a child is incarcerated, the community has failed. Whether the failure is at school, at home, at work, at the doctor's office, at the police station, it is hard to say in any particular case with careful listening and understanding. We owe it to our children to take better care of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment