Kids For Cash: Part II

 

How did the lawyers, court staff, the press, the kids and their parents not bring this continuous crime to light? How could this corrupt policy exist and continue for the 2 judges to be paid $2.6 million? Was it because of our blind acceptance of a tough on crime philosophy in America?

Please bear with me as I summarize.

            The legislative and executive branches have a sentencing “policy” in the form of a law which commands the sentencing judge to impose a minimum jail sentence in certain crimes; and the prosecuting attorney may also choose to exercise the option to command the sentencing judge to impose a minimum mandatory sentence by simply filing a notice of intent to impose this mandated penalty. But the judiciary is prohibited from having any sentencing policy of either always imposing or never imposing a certain sentence. This is because the judiciary shall never predetermine, before the sentencing hearing, what the sentence will be (even though the other 2 branches have the power to, in fact do, tell the judge what, at least, the minimum sentence is.)

          One might ask how a court policy is any different than mandatory minimum sentences or the sentencing commission pre-determining the standard sentence. There is a difference between minimum mandatory sentencing and guidelines of a sentencing commission. With the sentencing commission, the commission itself produces a recommendation or a guideline; it is not mandated, even though its followed in 90% of all sentences imposed each year in Pennsylvania. This is why the commission must be disbanded.

         With minimum mandatory sentencing the prosecutor was given extraordinary power in the balance of the 3 branches. This, however, was not unintended. In the past 40 years the prosecution in general has received much expanded power in several areas, which is another topic for another day. Has the tough on crime atmosphere that allowed the imposition of minimum mandatory sentencing and the sentencing commission and its “guidelines” somehow contributed to the two corrupt judges and their policy of putting almost all juveniles in detention? How did all these many important and responsible people permit this policy to go on and on? Did everybody let them continue day in and day out because they all thought it was okay to severely punish all kids?

            Perhaps what happened in Luzerne was tough on crime being carried to a new level - put every kid in detention to crack down on crime. Perhaps that’s how the 2 juvenile court judges got away with it at least for a couple of years.  Perhaps what happened in Luzerne County was simply unchecked power at work. Rather than the executive, judicial, and legislative branches checking each other, there is a breakdown in the balance of powers by only one branch, as with a king or dictator, being a kingdom unto itself with unbridled discretion, wielding unchecked power.

            It could be that fear of retaliation for anyone who was to question what the juvenile court judge was doing. This fear could manifest against the whistleblower in the form of political retaliation: being voted out of the office, or fired, or one’s job made too difficult to continue. Fear could also raise its ugly head if the retaliation is in the form of abuse of the legal process to sue or arrest the person in retaliation for asking questions. Or was the retaliation feared violence to the questioner and his family?

            One thing is for sure, it is essential that systems that are big, complex and important as the criminal justice and legal system, or the war on drugs, and/or sentencing itself must be reviewed and studied constantly. We should never pass a powerfully impacting law that shakes the constitutional foundation of any of these systems or concepts without a close follow-up review to measure the effort. Such a review must be meaningful, one that will be strongly considered for possible modification or even cancelation of the law that passed mandatory minimum sentencing or created the commission of sentencing if it did more harm than good or if it was totally ineffective. Otherwise, it is just good politics, lip service used to pass the new law and create the change. It merely sounds and looks good, but it actually makes matters worse.

           For instance, the Pennsylvania legislature itself had the concept of implementing a sentencing commission in the state studied prior to the law passing in 1982. The study findings determined that sentences in Pennsylvania will double as a result of the creation of the commission. It was passed anyway – regardless of the negative predictions. Sadly it is not only on the books as law but it’s been very alive and well for 32 years with an annual budget of more than $1.9 million. We must consider voiding existing laws more than passing new ones. We’re a society that passes tough laws at the drop of a hat. Whenever a heinous crime occurs the legislature passes a law making that crime, which already is on the books as a crime with a maximum punishment already, a new crime. And everybody feels better because something, anything, was done that makes no difference except too often to do more harm than good.   

            In conclusion, when something tragic such as the details of the Kids For Cash film or a disappointing outcome such as the Treyvon Martin case is realized, citizens must do their best to learn from these debilitating errors by studying all aspects of the events and urge lawmakers to pass laws that never allow something like this to happen again. With mandatory minimum sentencing, there is not much of a difference between the district attorney always imposing a mandatory minimum sentence in school zone drug cases and the judge or court having a policy that everybody gets this or doesn’t get that sentence. The constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentencing will one day be raised in a case that will merit finding the concept unconstitutional. But until that happens, the taxpayers must know how detrimental this is, what it costs and that it too must be removed as law along with the sentencing commission as soon as possible.