This past Tuesday, May 4, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a measure that improves the quality and integrity of our juvenile criminal justice system by banning the use of solitary confinement in the County’s juvenile detention facilities.The motion was passed with unanimous support. The interim Chief of Probation, Cal Remington, called the new measure not just a change in policy, but a change in culture.

Studies have shown that solitary confinement is not only an ineffective means of punishment, but it also creates a high risk of physical and psychological harm to those so incarcerated. Youth in solitary confinement have higher rates of suicide; some studies indicate that as many as 50 percent of youth who commit suicide while incarcerated were in solitary confinement at the time of death.

Because juveniles’ brains are still developing, the negative psychological impact of solitary confinement on juveniles is particularly pernicious. Teenage minds, especially those of juveniles in the justice system who have already been subject to unusually high stress, are less equipped to cope with trauma. Solitary confinement has been shown to only exacerbate juvenile mental health issues, creating a vicious cycle of negative conduct.

Los Angeles County has one of the largest juvenile justice systems in the United States. Close to 1200 youth are housed in its detention facilities. The ban on solitary confinement only applies to juveniles in Los Angeles County and is not a change in state law. However, other counties or the state itself could follow LA County’s direction and implement a similar order.

The new rule does not completely ban the use of solitary confinement, but severely restricts its application to very limited circumstances: when a youth poses a serious risk to his or her self and others, he or she can be separated for a short period of time.

According to reports, the new rule is to be implemented by September 2016. Changes, however, are expected to begin in some facilities this month.

Katie Walsh is an attorney in Orange County, California. Attorney Walsh concentrates her law practice on juvenile defense, criminal defense, and victim’s rights.

Contact the Law Offices of Katie Walsh online or at (714) 351-0178.

As part of a larger effort to reduce the incarcerated populations in overcrowded prisons, Governor Jerry Brown proposed a bill last November that would make it more difficult to charge juveniles as adults in criminal cases.

The initiative was initially blocked by a judge in Sacramento, but the California Supreme Court said they would hear arguments about the bill’s legality. The bill seeks to repeal part of an initiative from 2000 that permits prosecutors to charge juveniles as young as 14 as adults in cases involving serious offenses.

The bill would also require juvenile court judges to review each case individually and determine based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case whether the juvenile should be tried in juvenile court or adult court.

Perhaps the most important distinction between being tried as an adult and tried as a juvenile is the disparity in sentencing consequences. Juveniles tried as adults can be sentenced as adults, and as such can face much longer or severe sentences.Juveniles sentenced in juvenile court to incarceration must be released at age 23.

While legal and political battles over the bill continue, supporters are working to collect the necessary number of signatures from registered voters to put the bill on the ballot in the November general election.

California’s prisons are overcrowded and the state has taken measures to actively decrease its prison population. This particular bill is one of the more direct efforts to reduce the number of juveniles who are incarcerated in our state. Its future remains to be seen, both in court and potentially on the ballot.

Katie Walsh is an attorney in Orange County, California who focuses her practice on juvenile law, criminal defense, and victim’s rights.

Contact the Law Offices of Katie Walsh online or at (714) 351-0178.

The United States Supreme Court continues to recognize the inherent differences between juvenile and adult criminal offenders, acknowledging that the former are less psychologically and socially developed—and thus less legally culpable—than the latter.

At the end of last month, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Montgomery v. Louisiana, a case with major implications for inmates sentenced as youth to life without the possibility of parole. In a nutshell, the Supreme Court ruled in Montgomery that juveniles who were previously sentenced to life without the possibility of parole should be granted a new sentencing or parole hearing.

In 2012, the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that it was unconstitutional to automatically sentence a juvenile convicted of homicide to life-without-parole. This decision essentially meant that any individual in prison who had been so sentenced was being held in violation of his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

This legal predicament left many states wondering what to do about inmates who fit this criteria. Should they have to grant them a new sentencing or parole hearing? Was, in other words, the Miller decision retroactive to old cases or did only apply to new cases moving forward?

The Montgomery case answered just this question: juveniles who had previously been automatically sentenced to life-without-parole must be afforded a new sentencing or parole hearing. However, it does not mean that those inmates will be given a new sentence or granted parole, though that may be a possibility. Rather, Montgomery simply requires a new sentencing or parole hearing.

Since the Miller decision in 2012, California has already taken steps to address how it will address juvenile offenders sentenced to life-without-parole. In 2013, the state legislature passed a bill that permits an inmate so sentenced as a juvenile to a parole review after 15 years and release after 20 years.

This bill, titled “California Fair Sentencing for Youth,” required the state to give a new sentencing hearing to any inmate who was 18 years old or younger at the time they were convicted of a crime and sentenced to life-without-parole.

In light of Miller and last month’s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the legal landscape of juvenile justice has changed dramatically for those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as juveniles.

It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will eventually rule that all life sentences for crimes committed by juveniles are unconstitutional per se.

Katie Walsh is a defense attorney in Orange County, California. Attorney Walsh’s practice focuses on juvenile law, criminal defense, and victim’s rights.

Contact the Law Office of Katie Walsh at (714) 351-0178 or online.

Sexual harassment and victimization is not limited to any particular job, field, or profession. It is not always addressed, adjudicated and remedied in a court of law.

Recently, the prominent science journal Nature published a story about the testimony of a female scientific researcher who was harassed by a senior male colleague. Unfortunately, her story was not the first report of this kind: universities and research institutions have internally investigated and adjudicated reports of sexual or gender-based harassment for years now.

Just last week, for instance, an astrophysicist at Caltech was suspended for one year without pay for gender-based harassment. Last year, an astronomer at UC-Berkeley resigned in infamy after the university merely admonished him for committing harassing behavior against colleagues for years.

Advocates from within and without the academy have voiced support for victims of gender or sexual harassment, particularly in the sciences, a traditionally male-dominant profession.

Faculty, researchers, students, staff and other professionals on university campuses are entitled to protection from sexual or gender discrimination and harassment under Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972.

Complaints filed under Title IX are internally investigated by university officials. If the allegations of the complaint are substantiated, then the university will ordinarily adjudicate the complaint through its own hearings process and decide what if any discipline should be imposed.

Speaking out about one’s experience as a victim—regardless of field or profession—can be daunting and intimidating. If you or someone you know is experiencing or concerned about their victimization, it may help to speak with an advocate.

Katie Walsh is an attorney in Southern California who focuses on victim’s rights and criminal law.

Contact the Law Offices of Katie Walsh at (714) 351-0178 to learn how Attorney Walsh may be able to guide, assist, or represent you.