Sara Ach

4/6/11
Juvenile Justice System in Colorado
While the Colorado government recently passed laws to progress and improve the

state’s juvenile justice system, many changes need to occur to make it more beneficial,

humane, and effective. The “Summer of Violence”, when youth violence rates erupted in

Colorado, was a major turning point in the state’s juvenile justice system, driving the

drastic changes that were made in the early 1990’s. A state that focused on rehabilitation

lost sight of its ethics, prompting the creation of unjust bills such as one designed to try

more children as adults. In recent history, Colorado has slowly been turning the juvenile

system back around, but still has not regained sight of the humanity involved in juvenile

justice. There are many drawbacks, costs, and injustices of the system in place today.

First, the law that allows children to be incarcerated for a majority of their life after being

sentenced in an adult court of law, is financially inefficient. It costs the Colorado more

money to keep children in jail instead of putting them through rehabilitation. Secondly,

the fact that the state does not have restorative justice programs in place, and sends

children to prison after being tried in an adult court, will not decriminalize them, but

rather the opposite. Rehabilitation programs would be more beneficial to Colorado and

to the youth offenders, as it teaches the juveniles to reintegrate positively into society.

Finally, the law that allows juveniles to be tried as adults is wrong, as it has been

scientifically proven that children cannot be held to the same accountability for their

actions as adults can. If the government were to make amendments to current laws, such

as a recent bill that is being debated to give parole trial to children sentenced to life in

prison before 2006, it would make the system more fair, successful, and advantageous,

not only the state itself, but also to the children in jail, as well as the people of Colorado.
 Colorado is, and has been, at the forefront of the judicial progression of the

juvenile justice system; it has been a pioneer, and an example that all other states follow.

Maureen Cain, a criminal defense attorney for the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar notes

that the state, “developed a youth correctional system [for]… youth offenders,

particularly violent youth offenders,” (Cain), and had a system focused around treatment

instead of incarceration. Colorado was the first to adapt the idea of it being ethically

wrong to treat youths as adults in the justice system. Instead, they chose to focus on

rehabilitation.

The “Summer of Violence” occurred in 1993 in Denver, and was a dramatic

increase in juvenile crime, mainly violent crime, across the city and suburbs surrounding

it. The “Summer of Violence,” prompted the juvenile justice system to regress into a less

civilized state; politicians created laws that were not humane or helpful to the

government or people of Colorado. The public was scared, and the fear “snowballed and

built into this law enforcement decision to increase the ability to punish these kids,”

(Cain) showing how the Summer of Violence prompted new laws. The terror that was

born from the violence drove the politicians to make stricter laws to make it easier to try

children as adults and to lock them up for life. Such laws degraded the juvenile justice

system to a heartless form of itself.

The bill that was subsequently created in 1993 that gave Prosecutors the power to

decide if a child was to be tried as an adult was, and is, unjust; it was created because the

government thought that if the penalty was higher, children would be less likely to

commit violent crimes. Allowing prosecutors to decide how a juvenile was tried

guaranteed that more youth would be sent through the adult judiciary system instead of
the juvenile one. Because of this, more children would be locked away with harsher

punishments. Former Governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, a Prosecutor in 1993 and

contributor to the creation of the bill, believed that the increase in crime rates, “followed

several years of steadily rising juvenile crime rates and led to a statewide call for action,”

(Ritter) showing that the government wanted to crack down. The government believed

that harsher punishments was the only solution to increased crime rates; with a prosecutor

deciding, more youths would receive crueler penalties because the prosecutor has greater

motivation to prosecute than make sure justice is served. In the court of law, decisions

are supposed to be made by an impartial judge, motivated by morals and the law, but

instead this bill take rights away from the fair and impartial person and gives it to a bias,

selfishly motivated one. The need to crack down and create harsher punishments came

from the fear that the “Summer of Violence” instilled, and was an attempt to decrease

crime by increasing punishments.

The government shifted the focus of the juvenile justice system to punishment,

instead of on rehabilitation for youth offenders, through the new laws and prisons. At the

time, the economy was booming, and Colorado was, “in the midst of a… mandatory-

sentencing approach to crime, and… had the money to pay for it, so [they] could build

prisons,” (Cain) thus funding their harsh sentences. The government funded the

construction of more prisons, and with more space available in jails, it made it even

easier for judges and prosecutors to throw adolescents in jail for life.

In 2006, thirteen years after the “Summer of Violence,” Colorado began to steer

the juvenile justice system back in the right direction, away from juvenile life sentencing.

A bill passed that year, “did away with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole
for juvenile offenders,” (Glazier) showing the government came to the conclusion that it

was unjust to sentence a child to life without parole. The sentence of life without parole

is one adolescents who were tried in the adult courts were given, as this sentence does not

exist in juvenile court of law. Such practices were unwarranted, so the passing of the

2006 bill was a step in the right direction. Just two years later, Governor Bill Ritter

vetoed, “a bill, to give judges leeway on trying kids as adults,” (Fender) which would

effectively undo the law he helped to pass in 1993 to give power to the prosecutors. This

bill would have made the judiciary system fair, the way it was intended to be, but instead

was shot down by Ritter, and thus the power to direct file children to the adult system

remains in the hands of the prosecutors.

The Colorado juvenile justice system currently has many drawbacks, costs, and

injustices that are detrimental to the state, but if changed, the new laws will drastically

benefit Colorado, it’s inhabitants, and the criminals who desire a second chance.

Imprisoning children for life, or even for 40 years without parole, requires an exceptional

amount of money that could otherwise be used to contribute positively to the

development of the state. Without rehabilitation programs, juvenile delinquents become

better criminals instead of preparing to reintegrate with the public, having been

decriminalized. It is unjust that children can be tried as adults, as science has proven that

there are significant differences between the undeveloped and fully developed mind;

adolescents cannot be held accountable in the same way that adults can. By trying youth

as adults and giving them life sentences, the laws of the juvenile justice system are

simply hurting the state, and unfairly locking children behind bars. By looking at the
benefits against the disadvantages, it is clear that the current juvenile justice system needs

to be changed.

Colorado should take away the sentencing of life imprisonment, and extended

periods of imprisonment, for juveniles because it is much more costly than restorative

justice programs. No matter what economy, the price of keeping a person in jail is

exceptionally high. A study ordered by Senator Mike Machado in California showed

that, “New programs and policies for inmates and ex-cons could eliminate the need for as

many as 48,000 prison beds,” (Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition) saving the

government money by not having to pay for 48,000 beds. Implementing “new programs

and policies” for criminals instead of housing them in jail, “could save California

taxpayers $561 million to $684 million per year,” (Colorado Criminal Justice Reform

Coalition) showing how rehabilitation programs are better investments than prison cells.

It costs more money to keep people in jail than it does to put them through a restorative

justice process. These statistics, while from California, and can be used when looking at

the juvenile justice system in Colorado. If the Colorado government were to take away

long prison sentences for youth and replace it with less expensive treatment programs, it

would save the state a significant amount of money. The money that Colorado obtains by

having fewer prisons and does not use on rehabilitation is a surplus, which improves the

economy. The government can use this surplus where money is needed in order to

improve the state, from bettering education, to maintaining national parks, or even

updating public transportation. Rehabilitation programs would be financially beneficial,

and beneficial to the people of Colorado as well.

 The absence of youth rehabilitation programs in the Colorado juvenile justice

system makes youth offenders better criminals rather than teaching them how to

positively reinstate themselves in a community. A study was done in 1996 on youth

offending in Florida, using delinquents that “committed the same crime and had similar

prior records,” (Rhodes) to study the effects of the adult versus juvenile justice system on

children. The study showed that, “youth transferred to adult court… were a third more

likely to re-offend than those sent to juvenile justice system,” (Rhodes) proving that

keeping children in jail does not decriminalize them, it only increases their criminality.

The transition from adolescence to adulthood is an influential one, as Jeffery Fagan, a

professor of law and public heath at Columbia University observed. Fagan wrote that

youth who grow up in prison, “will know little else other than the… social rules and

norms learned… in the institution, including the reciprocal cycle of victimization and

retaliation,” (Rhodes) effectively creating criminals and taking away the chance of

rehabilitation. Some U.S. cities have initiated randomized experiments to determine

offenders’ recidivism after Restorative Justice programs. Restorative Justice programs

exhibited lower recidivism rates compared to court, and appeared especially effective

with youth offenders (Johnstone). This demonstrates that adult sentences for juvenile

delinquents does nothing more than develop criminals, while rehabilitation programs are

more effective in decriminalization and giving offenders the best chance at a better life.

With restorative justice policies, children who once were criminals can learn how to

positively re-integrate into their community. In the current justice system, youth are

students of crime while in jail. When they are released, they do not know how to

reinstate themselves in their community, and thus resort to what they do know, crime.
 The Colorado law that makes trying children as adults legal, as the court

sometimes does, is unreasonable and unjust. In the Thompson Supreme Court case, it

had been determined that adolescents and adults have different “competen[cy],”

(Thompson) of situations, and thus should be tried differently. The court came to this

conclusion in the Roper vs. Simmons case through scientific evidence that suggests that

the human brain is not fully developed and thus not capable of making completely

informed decisions until adulthood. Development of the brain, “continues into the early

or mid-20’s, particularly in the prefrontal cortex,” (Schaffer) the part of the brain

“associated with… functions such as planning, reasoning, judgment, and impulse

control,” (Schaffer) showing the difference between adults and adolescents. Adolescents

do not have the same decision making skills as adults, and are more likely to act

impulsively. Judgment and reasoning is not as clear in adolescent minds, and because the

“planning” (Schaffer) ability has not fully developed, they are less likely to think about

the full consequences of their actions. Children and adults clearly to do not think in the

same way, so juveniles cannot be held to the same accountability for their actions. Thus,

no matter how severe the crime, it is wrong and inhumane to try children as adults and

lock them behind bars for a crime they cannot yet fully understand the severity of.

While there are many drawbacks to the current juvenile judiciary system, there

are some benefits as well. Such harsh punishments for extreme or heinous crimes make

the victim’s family feel at ease, and as if justice has been served (PBS-When Kids Get

Life). In addition, knowing that the people who committed such horrible crimes are

locked away, unable to harm anyone else, is comforting to the general public. Having the

public feel safe while walking along the streets in Colorado and having the victim’s
family feel as comfortable as possible are two important factors and benefits of the

current juvenile justice system that are not to be overlooked.

Currently, the Colorado politicians are debating a bill related to the 2006 bill that

allowed all adolescents sentenced to life in prison to be tried for parole after forty years.

The 2006 bill only applies to the youth who were sentenced after it was made into a law.

The amendment would, “extend [the] ‘06 law on jail time for juvenile offenders to those

already in prison,” (Glazier) or in other words, apply to all children sentenced to life in

prison, both before it became a law in addition to those who it already applies to. While

this bill “faces opposition,” (Glazier) based on the evidence of the downfalls and

injustices of the current judicial system, the government should pass the law. Keeping

youths in prison for life without parole, costs more money and criminalizes them even

more without a chance at rehabilitation. Not only this, but according to scientific

evidence, the adolescent brain is different than the adult brain and thus should not be tried

in the same court of law. Because of it, the youths that were incarcerated before 2006

have an equal right to parole after forty years, the same as offenders after 2006, as those

who committed a crime after it became a low. It would be beneficial to Colorado to pass

this new bill, along with others, that progress the juvenile justice system towards a more

fair system, and back towards the restorative justice roots that it was founded on.
Bibliography:
Cain, Maureen. "Interviews - Maureen Cain | When Kids Get Life | FRONTLINE | PBS."
PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. 8 May 2007. Web. 03 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/whenkidsgetlife/interviews/cain.htm
Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. "Rehab Programs Can Cut Prison Costs."
Think Outside the Cage. Web. 08 Apr. 2011.
<http://thinkoutsidethecage2.blogspot.com/2007/06/rehab-programs-can-cut-
prison-costs.html>.
Fender, Jessica. "Ritter May Veto Shift on Young Criminals - A Bill to Give Judges
Leeway on Trying Kids as Adults Would Undo the Governor's '93 Work."
University of Denver Penrose Library /Penrose/Music. Web. 31 Mar. 2011.
<http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?
p_product=AWNB>.
Glazier, Kyle. "Bill Could Shift Sentences - The Push to Extend an '06 Law on Jail Time
for Juvenile Offenders to Those Already in Prison Faces Opposition." University
of Denver Penrose Library /Penrose/Music. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. <http://0-
infoweb.newsbank.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?
p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=136439614
BB70218&p_docnum=1&p_queryname=3>.
Johnstone, Gerry, ed. "A Restorative Justice Reader: Texts, Sources, Context." (2003).
Print.
Rhodes, Kristin. "The Criminal Prosecution of Juveniles." Lethbridge Undergraduate
Research Journal. Web. 03 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol3n2/juveniles.xml>.
Ritter, Bill. "GOV. RITTER VETO MESSAGE." Colorado.gov. Governor's Office of
State Planning and Budgeting. Web. 3 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=OSPB
%2FGOVRLayout&cid=1211447629095&pagename=GOVRWrapper>.
Schaffer, Amanda. "How Do Adolescent and Adult Brains Differ? - By Amanda
Schaffer." Slate Magazine. 15 Oct. 2004. Web. 3 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.slate.com/id/2108284>
"When Kids Get Life | FRONTLINE | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 03
Apr. 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/whenkidsgetlife/>.
The introduction of this essay captures the reader’s attention through a simple, yet
compelling first sentence. The issue of gay rights and the gay rights bill is an extremely
important one today, and almost anyone who reads the first sentence and sees that this is
a paper about how “gay marriage is banned” in Colorado, will immediately want to read
more. While I think that the first sentence is strong (with one minor change to the
structure), I feel like there is a lot of word repetition in the rest of the paragraph. Your
ideas new in each sentence, which is good, and while I know that sometimes you just
have to use a word many times, I would try to eliminate as much of that as possible to
keep your reader engaged. Also, your sentence structure in the first paragraph is all very
similar. While I enjoyed that you made your sentences short, concise, and easy to follow
for the reader, I think that some of them are too short and choppy, and it interrupts the
flow of your writing. By combining a couple of them here and there, you can vary your
sentence structure, which I think will make the paragraph flow better and keep the reader
reading.
Your claim in this paper is very clear, that the fact that the gay rights bill is not
being passed and that it is taking so long to pass it, is simply ridiculous, when this time
can be devoted to other important issues. You mentioned that you thought your weakest
part was your thesis. I commented on it above, but I think that you do convey the ideas
that you want to in your thesis, you just need to re-structure the sentence. I put in a
suggestion of a way I thought it could possibly work better: “The longer the gay rights
bill lingers in congress without being passed, the less time/energy the government has to
focus on issues that are hurt the state (or could say hurting the state’s wellbeing/effecting
the state’s economy, whatever specifics you meant here could be said).” I think this is
the case with a lot of your ideas in this paper in the sentences that I highlighted. Your
ideas are there, but re-structuring the sentences would make it even that much stronger
(also avoiding the word “thing”). You do definitely support your thesis with evidence,
but in the last paragraph you make two claims that I feel are bold, but neither are
supported by evidence. I think that you need to find a little evidence to support those two
claims in the last paragraph, especially because right now you do not have any evidence
in that entire paragraph. For example, the last sentence, “it is simply the conservatives in
the government that are holding Colorado back,” needs support.
You definitely provide two sides the argument, for example saying how it is
ridiculous that Colorado is afraid of polygamy but you can see how that would be a
relevant issue in Utah. I really enjoyed that part of the essay. From what I can tell, you
use enough scholarly sources, however adding in one or two more in the last paragraph
will definitely help. I also really enjoyed how you did in fact use this evidence that you
found, but you did not always directly quote it, you summarized it in your own writing
but still cited it. Whenever you added evidence in quotes, you definitely did insert it into
sentences, keeping your writing your own style, which I enjoyed. Sometimes the quotes
you added in were extremely long, and while I noticed that can be unavoidable is some
cases, if you could cut the quote up and put just the important words into a sentence,
instead of having the majority of the sentence be the quote, that would be a nice change.
That is just a suggestion, though, as what you have right now definitely works well.
Reverse Outline:
I. Even though Colorado has not yet passed the gay rights bill, the direction that
the entire country is headed in is to eventually have gay rights be equal to
those of the rest of the population.
a. Many state are already taking the first step by given gays some rights to
marriage by having civil union laws, and some states have already
legalized gay marriage.
b. Federal Government is on it’s way to changing definition of marriage for
the entire country.
c. If the media follows more Republican Senators or straight senators that
support the bill, it could help the progression of legalizing gay marriage by
showing that both parties and all kinds of people support it.
II. Slippery Slope Theory
a. Many people believe that if gay marriage becomes legal, that would lead
to other amendments and legalization of different types of marriage, such
as Polygamy.
i. Nothing supports this theory- has not happened in any state that
has legalized gay marriage
b. Definitely not a problem for Colorado
i. Could potentially be an issue to consider for states like Utah.
III. Even though Colorado has no legalized gay marriage, there are other, less
radical laws that could be put into place as a sort of “stepping stone”
a. Ritter passed a law that helped Colorado along with the process of
legalizing gay marriage
i. Law is a “stepping stone” for legalizing civil unions
1. One leads to the next which leads to hopefully eventually
legalizing gay marriage. They still do not have all rights
though.
b. There are homosexuals in who run the government
i. We allow them to make important decisions for our state but not
have all of their rights.
IV. The way the media approaches the topic of gay marriage only helps and adds
to the resistance.
a. Focus on gay democrats, as that is the stereotype of what people want the
bill to be passed.
i. Makes it so that very few people can connect and relate to the bill
and a large percentage of the population cannot relate-straight,
republican, anyone else.
b. Implies that everyone who supports the gay marriage bill is gay, this is not
true
i. The media draws a line by how they present the bill, making it the
division between republicans and democrats, gays and straights.
ii. Looking at the votes, the bill passed with 2/3 votes in the Senate
1. Shows that there must have been some republicans who
voted for it, the Senate is not 2/3 democratic
c. Also newspapers seem to shoot down bill a lot.
 i. They are very influential
V. Introduction
a. Colorado has not passed gay marriage but U.S. is moving in the direction
of legalizing gay marriage
b. While some states have legalized gay marriage, or some form of gay
rights, the majority of states have not.
c. Civil Unions not passing in many states either, could be the media’s fault
i. Poses bill in negative fashion
d. Colorado should pass the bill
i. Not passing it is taking away from other bills that could be passed
that are beneficial to the state.