Facebook, Google Twitter needs a free press. They need a democracy and journalism will sub five because they need journalism to survive. We caught up with darren hurley. A couple of case studies of the movement of the youth through the determinant sentencing process and then we also look at what are the what kind of institutional misconduct did the kid engage in. Who engage friday more misconduct within the facility. One Main Research question. We look at what are the factors that determine whether youth is released into the Community Without supervision ration leased with supervision or tran federal to the adult side. So we understand the decisionmaking. And then we look the ultimate recidivism question. A fiveyear followup time, given what maybe how much misconduct they were involved in the background risk factors and which predict how they behave when the get out and how many of these youth are committing new crimes. If the sentences scheme is supposed improve upon other rates resid simple that are as high as 80 erecidivism. Dogs the sentencing scheme in place that no one evaluated for over two or three decades is it working . Based on how the kids behave when they get out. So, historically, through the 70s, and 60s,texas mirrored the National Landscape of juvenile justice, and the original foundation of juvenile justice is rehabilitative in nature. Parents the state basically means that the juvenile system is meant to take care of any youth they may wander away from the straight and near narrow. Right . Become involved in criminal behavior and involved in the system. So texas mr. Royed the approach to provide education and keep them in group homes and community service. When we saw crime start to rise, and the mid to late 8s today and early 90s and texas mirror the effort to figure out what to do. Crime is increase everything and what are we going to do to try to a aappease society to oath the youth accountable. In texas day struggled with this shift in accountabilitybased justice. So its a juvenile system that is supposed be conditionable and say its our sort of responsibility to get you back on the right trajectory. But then then adult system, increasingly the juvenile side, shifted towards this personal accountability and the instead of offender driven system of the Juvenile Court, whiff who is this youth, what this background do they have a support network . Swung into an offensedriven system. Were not interested in what the youth its but were interested in what they did and pun uthem authority. But the Texas Legislature had both sides of the aisle agreeing that this wasnt working, right . Either youth were only serving on the average five months of incarceration in Texas Youth Commission, or they were being certified and went into adult court and serving lengthier sentences than young adult counterparts on the adult sigh so were seeing some fall through crack or two severe, and were trying out how to apetes the masses and come up with a appease the masses and come up with blend sentencing. In 1987 when the determinant sentencing act was passed this was a way to provide what they call juvenile contiguous blended sentence, meaning a youth can be subjected to both jurisdictions and gives them a sect chance in june court but if that fails and a number of players went the juvenile correctional and well not only juvenile correctional facilities but Juvenile Court actors decide the youth is rehabilitated they can be released out of juvenile incarceration or if they decide these need to be transferred to the adult side, then jurisdiction would switch over. So juvenile with a sentence of ten years who coxs into Texas Youth Commission at 17, could serve three to four years there and then be transferred to serve on the adult side. So if we thought bat case study of a youth who we can follow through the determinant sentencing process, we decided to include a story of the vini in this book and we open skype can the crime he was part of. So he was one of six perpetrators who in 1993, were responsible for the aggravated Sexual Assault and homicide of two teenage girls in houston, texas. And he was a 14yearold in the mix with 16 and 17 and 18yearolds, or two 17, and three 18yearolds and was the younger brother of win individual and by account of the perpetrator he was present for and engaged in aggravated Sexual Assault and then left the scene, his brother and others told him to good home prior to the homicides occurring. Whether or not that makes a difference is up to many people to decide but he was 14 years old. And by all accounts was an upstanding young man. So, his older brother was gang involved. Had gone out with his old are brother this evening, but by all other conditions demonstrated great artistic ability, teachers were working on getting him into a Different School capitalize on that ability as a good student, good relationships at home. But because of his page and this legislation having been passed five years prior, 1993, peak crime, they pursued determinant sentence and he received 40 areas for this crime. Now, the other offenders had been either sentenced to death or they were sentenced to death but then a couple of them, who were only 17 instead of 18, had the commences commuted to life without parole. So vini veinie provides an interesting example because it the worst of the worst crimes committed best the individuals buzz he also provides sort of not a chronic not an example of a chronic offender or heavily gang involved offender but a young kid who committed a horrific offense once and what do we do with that youth . So, in vinniey cozy case weapon into the Youth Commission cant connect name to he likely participated in capital offender Treatment Program and then when it came tike in 1996 for his first determination hearing the initial Decision Point where members from Texas Youth Commission and others, prosecution, come before a judge, discuss this progress and make a recommendation or what to do with him and at that point, while the member in actor from qyc, administrators and therapists recommend he be released with supervision, right . He could potentially serve the balance of this lengthy sentence under juvenile parole supervision. And the judge, who we discuss in the book, pat shelton, decided to override that and transfer him to the adult side. And the judge provides these two just really poignant quotes that illustrate this pendulum swing at the time from the rehabilitative intent of the system accountability of juvenile Justice System taking care of the youth to the shift towards personal accountability, and the not only responsibility, i think, probably judged felt, but the desire to sort of push a more punitive, harsher level of accountability, so judge shelton, during this determination hearing, again, the staff mentioned he was a model ward during his commitment to tyc. They wanted him to serve the remainder of his sentence under the adult parole supervision. And our book talks about the fact that during these the first decade of this legislation, the judge would follow the recommendations about 80 of the time. But in case like this, he basically decided dismissed the expression said that the nonserious offense is sufficient to justify that sentence. We are saying is that we cant trust you based on what you did that one day no matter how perfect you were before and after. I think the system has got to put the interests of the victim and the public first. And then moving on, to discuss the potential to rehabilitate and fact these programs and legislation make this argument, youth are malleable. If we can get you during the midadolescent development we have this ability to change the trajectory. The judge said can we rehabilitate the 15yearold and is it worth the time and expense considering the crime committed . The answer is no. At the time of the transfer hearing i have to consider what that offense was worth, not what the offender is worth. That is the difference between the court and tyc. So here you have this example of him basically drawing a line between tycs rehabilitative intent with cap Thunder Program or other specialized treatment, and the court feeling this responsibility of being tough on crime and providing fuel to the fire of this narrative of, we are no longer an offend aredriven system. We dont care. As he said, who you are or wife you are worth it. We care about the offense and what you did. So at that point he was transferred to the texas prison system, and he has had numerous hearings since, and the victim family and the victim familys friends have campaigned successfully to get his parole denied every time. So he is still in the texas prison system now, finishing out the 40year sentence. So i think on a National Scale the book sort of i dont know challenges the question of how do we best make this decision and try to maybe appreciate it on a casebycase basis. Its easy to look at black and white crime rates but here we have detail and data to appreciate the complexity of these youth lives coming into the picture. And appreciate sort of just the unbelievable challenge that exists in figuring out exactly how to either rehabilitate. The successfully to pour enough resources into the Capital Offender Program so it can serve more than 18 youth over sixmonth period, or potentially make a determination that a youth is beyond rehabilitation, whether its because they view themselves as a lost cause for so long or the system now has sort of determined that