When Kids Get Life - Frontline

When Kids Get Life airs on most PBS stations on Tuesday as part of Frontline (it will also be online).

Ofra Bikel's latest documentary looks at five of the 45 prisoners in Colorado who are serving life without parole for  crimes they committed when they were juveniles.  

Bikel's has done a series of documentaries on the criminal justie system for Frontline.  Some of them have helped innocent people be freed from prison.

They include The Case for Innocence, Requiem for Frank Lee Smith, Snitch, An Ordinary Crime, The Burden of Innocence, and The Plea (the last two are online).

It becomes clear that some of the inmates in When Kids Get Life should never have gone to jail and others should not spend the rest of their lives in jail.

Colorado once had one of the most progressive juvenile justice systems.  Jeffrey Fagan (pictured above) is interviewed about it.  But, in the early 90s like many states, they changed the law to allow for juveniles to be tried as adults and sent to prison for life without parole.  And the choice was left to the prosecutor, not the judge.

In 2006, Colorado became the first state to change from life to being eligable for parole after 40 years.  But a compromise to pass the bill over the objections of district attorneys and the families of murder victims dropped a provision to make it retroactive.

The Pendulum Foundation was started by the parents of Eric Jenson who is in tonight's documentary.  

It is also clear that there was physical and/or sexual abuse in many of the cases.  There needs to be more resources put into child abuse prevention and treatment programs.

•  You've posted about an issue that drives me crazy

  sentencing children as adults and never acknowledging that the majority of them were victims before they ever had an option.  It is beyond ridiculous that a society which recognises that a child is not competent to drink, vote, enter a contract or do any number of other things, should treat them as mature adults for the purposes of crime.  

  This is just another example of the fallacious notions which took hold of this country in the 80's the answer to every misdeed was the harshest punishment possible.

  by real world chick on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:35:09 PM PDT

  •  You should watch tonight

    The documentary raises those issues and more.

    And it helps to hear their stories and their family's stories.

    by ari on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:38:35 PM PDT

•  It depends

  Sometimes I do think that some juveniles should be tried as adults. I'm sorry; but, by the age of 16, most people know the difference between right and wrong. Murdering someone is something that is uncondonable, regardless of the "circumstances" of one's childhood. If these are extremely violent crimes--crimes that are so heinous that are beyond the pale--trying the perpetrators as adults is reasonable. I would generally say that I would make the cutoff age 16. By age 16 right and wrong are clear.

  Conversely, if a 10 year old murdered someone, I perhaps would be more charitable--up to a point. But a 16 year old is mature enough at that point to know the difference.

  We aren't talking about the juvenile who steals a candy bar from a convenience store or who uses drugs and is caught. Generally these offenders are very violent and brutal. I don't have sympathy for them.

  Now, as for more prevention and treatment programs, I agree with you in that area. There should be early intervention programs to prevent these types of tragedies. However, by the time that these kids have engaged in extremely violent crime, it is probably already too late.

  by jiacinto on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:49:05 PM PDT

  •  One of the hard things. . .

    . . . about sentencing is that people all develop differently. Some 17 year olds are as clueless about consequences as some 8 year olds. While some 12 year olds are capable of an adult level of thought.

    I've heard an expert on criminal behavior who posits that locking up many violent offenders past a certain age is just a waste of money - once they have outgrown the violence of their late teens and 20s, they are unlikely to reoffend. If we could just keep them off the streets until they're over 30. . .

    We also don't seem to have figured out whether we're trying to punish, or rehabilitate, or just prevent additional crimes by removing criminals from the general population. If we had a clear goal for the criminal justice system, we might make more progress.

    by Robespierrette on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:25:32 PM PDT

    •  Watch the program

      Yeah, different people develop differently.

      Andrew Medina who is in the program was 15 when he attempted a carjacking (the other two invovled made a deal and got much less time), he is described as being immature.  For the past four years he has been in lockdown in a supermax prison.  He isn't allowed any physical contact with his mother.

      His case and the others aren't as clearcut as you describe.

      The program will be online sometime Wednesday

      http://www.pbs.org/...

      by ari on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:06:19 AM PDT