Sent Away
June 12, 2012 04:19:00 am
By Cara Tabachnick
Nathan Jordan is serving a 170-year sentence at Sterling Correction Facility in Colorado for aggravated robbery, motor vehicle theft and possession of a weapon.
But most of his crimes, which did not result in anyone’s death or injury, took place in in the late 1990s, before he was 18 . According to Colorado law, he was a juvenile offender.
So how did Jordan end up with the kind of sentence that might be meted out to serial killers or career criminals?
The answer is devastatingly simple: he was tried in adult court.
Prosecuting offenders under the legal age of majority in adult courts (the age varies from state to state) is not supposed to happen.
Juvenile courts were established over 100 years ago, in response to a consensus of opinion from educators and other experts that juveniles were entitled to be considered differently than adults in the criminal justice system. Psychological and medical research since has shown that the brains of juveniles are still not developed sufficiently to understand the consequences of their behavior and reign in self-destructive impulses.
Nonetheless, between 200,000 and 250,000 juveniles are processed annually through the adult criminal court system, according to a 2011 report by the National Institute of Corrections.
In 2009, the last year for which such statistics were available, a federal Bureau of Justice Statistics report estimated that approximately 10,000 youth were serving time in adult prisons or jail around the U.S.—mostly for robbery offenses on at any day of the week
Even though many will get out before they turn 21, their exposure to the adult justice system will have done lasting damage to their personal lives. With a criminal record in their background, many will be unable to find well-paying jobs or careers; and some may re-offend—intensifying the cycle of crime and hardship that has undermined many poor urban neighborhoods.
‘Physical and Mental Harm’
“Incredible physical and mental harm can happen to youth in adult jails,” says Sarah Bryer, Executive Director of the National Juvenile Justice Network, a national not-for-profit based in D.C. which represents a consortium of juvenile advocates.
“[Adult] prisons are not set up to rehabilitate youth; [they provide] no education, no help and no services.”
Research backs up the arguments of critics like Bryer that trying juveniles in adult court is counterproductive.
A 2007 study by the Task Force on Community Preventative Services of the Center for Disease Control, for example, found that juveniles subject sent to the adult system were more likely to be arrested for subsequent crimes, including violent crime, compared with those retained in the juvenile justice system.
One reason for the high number of juveniles processed through adult courts is the difference in the age of majority from state to state.
In New York anyone over 16 can be tried in adult court, while in neighboring Connecticut the juvenile system encompasses anyone under the age of 17. Indeed 247,000 of the juveniles in the adult court system nationwide are there because of jurisdictional age issues, reports the National Center on Juvenile Justice, the research arm of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, a national not-for-profit based in Reno Nevada.
Young people are also transferred into the adult court system through the use of judicial waivers or prosecutorial discretion, under which court authorities can transfer a juvenile judged to be “dangerous” or a habitual offender into adult custody.
According to the 2011 National Institute of Corrections report, 46 states provide for judicial waivers, in which the judge can decide that the offender should be transferred to the adult criminal justice system. Some 29 of these states also allow courts to exclude young people from the juvenile justice system based on the category of the offense, such as violent crimes such as murder or rape.
Perhaps the most little-known tool is the statutory discretion granted to prosecutors in some jurisdictions to decide where and how they want to proceed with cases against juveniles. The practice is called “direct file”—and it is used by 14 states, including Florida, Colorado and Arkansas, plus the District of Columbia today.
That, in fact, is what trapped Nathan Jordan.
As a troubled adolescent growing up in Denver, he was in and out of group homes and juvenile detention centers. At the age of 15, he robbed a convenience store, the first of a flurry of increasingly serious offenses. In the incident which landed him in court for the last time, he carjacked a woman’s car (with her in it). He was apprehended with a gun in his possession. —
A determined prosecutor decided Jordan needed to be taught a harsh lesson.
Invoking Colorado’s direct file statute, the prosecutor charged him with aggravated motor vehicle theft in first degree, aggravated motor vehicle theft, second degree kidnapping and possession of a weapon in adult criminal court.
Jordan’s younger sister Allysa, who has been working to bring attention to his case, concedes he needed to be punished. But she argues the system should have taken his background as the abandoned child of an addict mother, and his youth, into consideration before condemning him to a life behind bars and treating him, in her words, like a “monster.”
“He’s not a monster,” insisted Allysa, 25, who currently works as a professional gardener. “He knows he was wrong for his crimes, but he shouldn’t rot in prison.”
Cases like Jordan’s have strengthened a growing bipartisan consensus “that we need to move kids out of the adult system,” says Liz Ryan, CEO of the Campaign for Youth Justice, a Washington, D.C. based national advocacy group.
Data Incomplete
But one of the obstacles to reforming the system is that data about the number of juveniles transferred to adult court is incomplete. Only 13 of the 46 states that use waivers publicly report the total number of transfers, including through direct file. Even fewer provide information on offense profiles, demographic characteristics, or details regarding processing and sentencing.
Current policies are a legacy of the nationwide response to a wave of juvenile violence in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which led some criminologists to predict the rise of “super predators”—incorrigible juveniles delinquents who were threats to public safety.
The fears triggered a tough-on-crime response by politicians. Statutes providing for judicial waivers and other procedures such as direct file which either allowed or mandated that certain cases against juveniles be filed directly in criminal court, bypassing juvenile court altogether, proliferated and expanded dramatically.
Legislatures in nearly every state revised or rewrote their laws to broaden the scope of transfers.
Some created lower age thresh-holds; others established certain categories of offenses. But these laws subtly changed the judicial process, reducing judges’ traditional discretion over sentencing, and giving prosecutors effective authority in determining the outcomes of juvenile cases through their decisions about charging.
National Trend
The shift reflected a national trend. During the “tough-on-crime” 1980s, mandatory/minimum sentencing laws for possession or dealing in drugs like crack cocaine condemned thousands of individuals—many of them from urban black neighborhoods— to long stays in prison.
Yet, violent juvenile crime is declining. Arrest of juveniles for homicide offenses has dropped to levels below those of 1980, with 250 arrests per 100,000 for violent crimes in 2010, the last numbers available, but number of juveniles in the adult criminal justice system continues to remain high.
A 2012 study entitled, “Violent Crime Rates Continue to Fall Among Juveniles and Young Adults” by Jeffrey Butts, the Director of Center for Research and Evaluation at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, found that transferring juveniles to criminal court is not correlated with falling youth violence.
Nevertheless, prosecutors say they still need the discretion granted by statutes to decide whether to send a juvenile to criminal court .
“There should be some punishment and some community protection,” says David LaBahn, president and CEO of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys,who points out there is no “constitutional right” to be tried in juvenile court. .
LaBahn notes that although the juvenile courts were established as a response to the need for social services for troubled youth, the protection of public safety is still paramount.
Prosecutors should be able to respond to cases “where the rehabilitation model does not work,” he says.
Every case that gets transferred has a story and reason behind (it),” adds LaBahn.
Wide Net
Advocates in Colorado and elsewhere, however, say the direct file statute has cast a wider net than the violent offenders it was originally intended for.
A recent report, “Re-Directing Justice: The Consequences of Prosecuting Youth as Adults and the Need to Restore Judicial Oversight,” by the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition (CJDC) found that 85 percent of the state’s direct-file cases involved middle- to low-level felonies such as robbery or assault.
Is public safety served by putting troubled and violent youths behind bars for biblical-length sentences?
Dwayne Betts provides one example that suggests too many young lives are being written off prematurely in the justice system. Betts was 16 when he was arrested and sentenced in adult court in Fairfax, VA., in 1997, to nine years for a carjacking. After serving eight and a half years of his sentence at five different prisons in Virginia, he was released March 4, 2005.
Four years later, he graduated from the University of Maryland (where he was commencement speaker) with a BA in English, and went on to graduate school at Harvard University.
Now in his 30s and a father of two, Betts counts himself lucky.
Some of the cellmates Betts left behind are serving sentences of 30 or 60 years for crimes committed as teenagers. They are, he worries, forgotten.
“Young people in the system are invisible,” Betts said at juvenile justice conference held in April at John Jay College.
Voices for Change
In one encouraging sign, some of the leading voices for change have come from inside the system.
New York State Commissioner of Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) Gladys Carrión has focused on a rejuvenation of the state’s juvenile justice system since she was appointed in in January 2007.
Carrión closed 18 juvenile detention centers in the first five years of her tenure. Although her efforts ran into controversy from upstate legislators, angry over the loss of some 1,000 jobs at the centers, Carrión says more changes are necessary, including raising New York’s age of minority.
Arguing that only the most violent offenders should be held in detention facilities, observing that the majority of the youth in the system would be better served if they were returned to supervised programs in their home communities.
That, she adds, it would help the bottom line in an age of economic constraints on local governments.
“The cost of keeping a young person incarcerated in New York State is about $266,000 per year, mostly with terrible outcomes,” Carrion said at the New York juvenile justice conference.
Others clearly agree that the juvenile justice system needs to be overhauled and re-examined. North Carolina and Vermont are currently working on putting “raise their age” bills before legislators this year.
And in April 2012, Colorado amended its direct file provision as a result of a campaign by the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition and bipartisan support in the state legislature . The new bill, which Gov. John Hickenlooper signed into law after it passed the legislature with bipartisan support, bars district attorneys from charging juveniles as adults for many low and mid-level felonies. It also raises the age at which young offenders may be charged as adults for more serious crimes from 14 to 16.
That may help Nathan Jordan.
He’s currently working with the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition to get his case—and his 170-year sentence— reviewed.
“Now he has hope,” said Allysa Jordan.
But thousands of others still don’t.
Cara Tabachnick is Managing Editor of The Crime Report. She welcomes comments from readers.
Posted by Heidi Chiavario
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 08:08
I agree with you Jeff but we have to take into consideration that some kids that are abandoned may not have the chance to even go to schools for additional counseling. Your absolutely correct about children not being fully developed mentally and physically until really up to ages 18 some even until 21. I would like to see more help for juveniles in these situations. It is up to our generation and the futures to make these facts known and try to step it up in the entire criminal justice system. There are too many loose ends and for a better lack of words falling through the cracks the way things are now. : )
Posted by Heidi Chiavario
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 07:50
Heidi Chiavario
I do agree that Nathan’s past should have been taken into consideration, however it probably would not have made a difference. He began offending at an early age and they were not just minor offenses. Though he was abandoned by an addict of a mother. I have to assume that he and his sister had to do what they had to do for food, clothing, and shelter he did go to more extreme measures. His sister had no mention of this type of behavior. Whether he did what he did we do not have all the details. I don’t agree that he should have been tried as an adult. As we KNOW adults get no rehabilitation let alone habilitation skills to survive outside of those cell walls juvenile detention facilities to have the capability to do so in some cases and Nathan might have had a fighting chance out here in the real world as an adult. I would really like to see the ages be moved up for these kids so that they may have somewhat of a normal life. However, I do agree that the offense should be taken into consideration as well. Why because a child is not intelligently full until the age of 18 or so. Meaning there brains are not fully developed and they do not rationalize out thoughts completely until then. It is a pr oven fact that this is indeed true. Neurologically in may even take boys longer than girls to meet that component. It has been a real eye opener to me as to how little true justice is met in many instances like Nathan’s. I want to see more rehabilitative programs for these kids and more divisions being offered so they can have a fighting chance. Even if they have some time in juvenile facilities that can provide them with these things and then have to go to adult prisons for some amount of time we might see lower return rates and lower incarceration.
Posted by Eddie Coleman
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 03:38
Why do kids develop such behavior? And what can we do to fix them? I agree that kids pass sometime will have a empact on their life as an aduit. So young adiut back round should be look at when their behavior is an factor or still in question in some casees tried in court it should be determined if that person should be tried as an juvenile or an aduit.
Posted by Denise
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 01:25
I really enjoyed this article and feel that it raised many good points. I do, for the most part, agree with its premise that children should not be tried as adults. All things must be considered. The background and prior history of the child, the circumstances of the crime, and the injury/ damage to the victim must be considered. This article made such a good point when it talked about the long term effects of being introduced to the adult justice at such a young age. Many will never be able to have successful careers because of their records (as we saw at Summit of Hope) .Then when they have no way of making money and end up selling drugs, everyone looks at that as if it confirms their original notion of how bad the child was… When in reality society’s reaction (labeling theory) to the criminal record could be what pushed . However, that being said if a child callously murders in cold blood; that is a different story. In certain cases, precautions need to be taken for society’s safety; and a teenager that could callously murder would be very likely to kill again.
Posted by Sissy 123
Tuesday, October 02, 2012 06:10
I enjoyed the article. I think it is sad to charge a young person as an adult especially when they can’t understand the consequences. Unless they kill someone. I think a sentence to receive mandatory conseling to allow them to restructure their life. I’m not saying let them off. I’m saying rehabilitate them, find out why they are making poor choices and work with that aspect first. Then give them a chance to fix what is broken. I’m so sure it will be cheaper and could actually enhance the life of someone headed in the wrong direction.
Posted by Anna Balmos
Monday, July 23, 2012 04:57
I think the justice system needs to take a serious look at some of its sentencing laws; especially those that concern under-age non-violent offenders, lower-level drug offenders and for those who are so far past the age and ability to cause harm they could be referred to as ancient relics rather than dangerous criminals. Besides, who is going to live 170 years? Get real.
Unless the juvenile is seriously violent and uncontrollable I think putting them away rather than helping them to learn better is a grievous injustice.
Posted by Emily RIchardson 1233
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 08:03
I think that people really need to look into why the individual is doin these crimes before they just lock them up. Our system is supposed to give everyone a fair trial and putting children into jail for adult sentences and not helping them work through it is not the solution. We need to help these children to become better citizens, then just let them rot in a cell for the rest of thier life.
Posted by Allsportsdad2
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 04:44
Some may claim that the United States has one of the worst judicial systems in the entire world and after reading this article one might have to agree with that statement. I once read an article similar to this on California’s 3rd strike law where a juvenile had grown up and simply stolen a petty item but ended up go to prison for an unbelievable amount of time. Of course 170 years is a bit long also. It is no surprise that our youths who are committing crimes are often tried in adult court but their severity of crime and the age in which they are when they commit them certainly play a part in this outcome. I can’t agree or disagree with it because each case has a new set of circumstances, but in the case of Nathan Jordan I would have to say the state of Colorado went a bit overboard. I understand the crimes committed and those actions must be punished, but to the degree in which they were handled is almost a crime in itself. Thanks Doug 123
Posted by Kristina Randle
Monday, June 18, 2012 03:05
This should never happen. Something is wrong with our system. This is a great, detailed article that brings a major problem to light. Great post.
http://kristinarandle.com/blog/
Posted by Bell123
Sunday, June 17, 2012 09:51
This just goes to show how the juvenile and Adult courts do not work. They are two seprate issues and should be looked at that way. What you do as a junenile should be corrected by juvenile courts not through adult. It should never have to be carried over to what I call mature age. Thanks Bell123
Posted by Ruth
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 04:12
If this is how our system is set up then we do have a problem and it needs to be fixed or changed. The fact remains that no one was killed and although it was a horrible experience for the victims, no one was killed. How can anyone be sent to jail for 170 year sentence when no one was killed! This is an outrage. I live in Spain and here even when someone is killed the maximum is 25 or 30 years. And the fact that this was a juvenile at the time is absolutely unjust and morally wrong. Remorse, no remorse, or whatever one wants to extrapolate from court documents etc. still does not justifey incarcerating a youth for life or even an adult for that matter. The US needs to get with the rest of the civilized world and relook at its penal system especially with regard to youth. I think there are many on Wall Street and the corporate upper eschelon who should be serving 170 year sentences for the lives they have destroyed and not even with a gun. I stand by Nathan and hope he and many others will be freed.
Posted by Mary
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:09
This article sicken me and embarrassed me to be an American. This is how we have been treating our children? This is WRONG!!!! We all know someday most that are serving long sentences will get out and be so much worse than when they went in. Why can’t we treat these people with shorter ( non-violent ) sentences but make it mandatory that they get an education, treatment, and what ever else they need—make them earn their freedom—isn’t that what this country stands for???? I would love to see a prosecutur do one month in a high security prison and let him do his job.
Posted by jeff petty
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 08:49
Seems like if you are a kid with all the troubles Nathan Jordan had there ought to be increased emphasis on school and counseling as opposed to throwing away the key. it would cost alot less and for all the sad cases that do not have a little sister like Allysa Jordan to raise the gauntlet as well as the bar. That would a system that could have plenty of checks and balances , even lockup if needed in concert with rehab ,after all aren`t the younger minds still being formed wouldn`t it be worth a try, the return could be massive .
Posted by Robert Bagnell
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 08:15
One thing that was not mentioned, in very many cases I investigated, the offender did not know he/she could be tried as an adult. The juvenile justice system does not provide any deterrance for individuals committing very serious crime and especially where Gang (initation/violence) is a part of/or the reason the crime was committed.
Posted by Shay
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 06:25
Adult certification exists for a reason. Like a pendulum, sentencing historically swings between indeterminate and determinate, and there is a similarity there with adult certifications. At times, juveniles commit atrocious crimes, and there is moral uproar about the secrecy of the juvenile court system and the protection of juveniles is perceived by the public as inappropriately “soft”.
Mr. Jordan did commmit multiple robberies, by his own admission, with the use of a gun (at least once). Robbery is a PERSON crime, and though Mr. Stark did not kill his victims, he did in fact threaten to kill them by using a gun to take property. I read the petition written by him and his brother, and nowhere did he mention remorse he felt for his actions to his victims. The focus was completely on him and his background. Here is what I know – there are people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds that do not wave guns in people’s faces. I would like to see the police reports concerning Mr. Stark’s crimes before I jump on the bandwagon to free him.
That being said, juveniles deserve protections, and we all make mistakes as young people. There are some actions that spark outrage and deserve prosecution in an adult criminal court. I take issue with your statement that “Prosecuting offenders under the legal age of majority in adult courts (the age varies from state to state) is not supposed to happen”. It IS suppose to happen, as our laws allow it. The question lies in where we, as a society, can come together to find consensus and agreement on those circumstances. In execution, we do not act as one society, however. States have differing ages of majority because there is NO answer that is palatable and agreed upon by everyone. It comes down to influence and motivation of the majority. You have written a fine article to nudge people; I only wish there were some more facts about Mr. Stark included, so that readers can decide for themselves on that particular case.
Posted by manuel paiz
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 03:29
well what can i say, we have the low and we try them as a juvenile ,but we get not results that we to expected