A Missed Opportunity: Choosing Retribution over Rehabilitation for a Child
It is with profound disappointment that we read the selective and inflammatory comments by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office concerning our client-partner (“A Philly teen who wanted to be a terrorist bomb maker had conducted explosive tests near his house, authorities say”). At the Youth Sentencing & Reentry Project, we work every day with young people alleged to have committed serious crimes. It goes without saying that the charges against this young person are very serious. We don’t have to be proud of every choice a child makes to know they are still a child, and deserve to be treated that way. For four months, this young person, who was 17 years old at the time, was manipulated and brainwashed with propaganda by people who knowingly prey on vulnerable children.
What the District Attorney’s Office did not share in their press release is that since he was arrested over a year ago, this young person has completely renounced any extremist beliefs and has responded beautifully to intervention and care in the juvenile system. According to the people who have been with him every day of his thirteen months in juvenile custody, he was thriving in the juvenile system – the staff at the Juvenile Justice Services Center have praised his behavior and attitude and refer to him as a positive influence on the other residents. He is caring and empathetic to all he encounters, including those in the LGBTQ community.
The District Attorney’s Office had the choice to keep this child’s case in the juvenile system where he was flourishing, yet they CHOSE to prosecute him as an adult and request $20 million bail, which will essentially keep him in solitary confinement in an adult jail. Perhaps most appalling, they CHOSE to hold a press conference to brag about their treatment of a child as an adult, revealing his name and image. This is not a public safety issue: whether charged as an adult or a juvenile, the young person would have remained in custody until his trial.
While the District Attorney’s Office publicly contends that it believes that its approach to juvenile justice is one in which “youth redemption…is not mutually exclusive with community safety and accountability,” the Office’s choice to charge a child as an adult demonstrates otherwise. While the District Attorney himself has “pledged to treat system-involved youth as kids” and has stated he “believes in giving youth who have committed the gravest offenses a chance at redemption,” the prosecutorial actions by his office and their inflammatory efforts to garner publicity as a result of their prosecution of children demonstrate otherwise.
When kids come into contact with the adult system, their outcomes are worse – not better. The District Attorney’s Office chose to charge this child as an adult knowing that if they were successful, his treatment and programming in the juvenile system would be cut off and that he would be placed in solitary confinement at an adult prison. This was a case where the true purpose of the juvenile system had an opportunity to do some real good – rehabilitate this young man and reintegrate him into his community. Our system could have chosen treatment and an opportunity for a young person to continue to unlearn and heal from the brainwashing and exploitation he experienced at the hands of adults. The prosecutorial decisions in this case appear aimed more at retribution and a cheap media win than real community safety. We are profoundly disappointed.
Margot Isman is the Policy Director at the Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project
