Tag: juvenile court

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

A Second Juvenile Court Judge?

D.A. candidate Steve Mulroy, Judge Tarik Sugarmon, and County Mayor Lee Harris at a press conference. (Photo: Jackson Baker)

Should there be more than one Juvenile Court judge in Shelby County?

It’s a question that first came up in the wake of the 2006 county election when a newly installed Democratic contingent on the County Commission proposed the establishment of a second judge and voted to create one. 

After a drawn-out legal process that effort was disallowed, it’s now baaack! Maybe. It comes via the suggestion of Tarik Sugarmon, a candidate for what is still a solitary position of Juvenile Court Judge.

That original  move to double the number of judges was stoutly resisted by the Republican minority on the Commission and, most importantly, by Juvenile Court Judge Curtis Person, a former state Senator and longtime Court referee who was himself fresh from an election victory in 2006. Person sued to block it.

The issue was argued over back and forth, subjected to a court stay and a lifting of the stay by a Shelby County Chancellor, until, finally,  a state Court of Appeals decision in 2007 ruled invalid the Tennessee statute empowering such an action on separation-of-powers grounds. The state Supreme Court declined to review the matter back then.

What may revive it was a statement made at a press conference on Friday by Sugarmon, one of the two candidates for Juvenile Court Judge (the other being incumbent Judge Dan Michael). The point of the press conference at a park adjoining Cummings Elementary School, was for County Mayor Lee Harris and Democratic D.A. candidate Steve Mulroy to endorse Sugarmon’s candidacy.

Once that was duly done, a brief Q-and-A session with reporters ensued, at which Mulroy was reminded of the second judge issue, which took place when he was a member of the Commission and a leading proponent. 

Mulroy said on Friday  said he still liked the idea. “I’ve thought for a long time that the current system we have where there’s one person that is sort of in charge of this whole fiefdom and appoints all these judicial commissioners, is probably not the best model. It’s not even the most common model around the country. Multiple judges and juvenile courts are really the norm. And we’re the exception.”

But the courts had ruled against it, Mulroy conceded, and “that is currently the law.”

But is it? Sugarmon didn’t think so. “If I’m not mistaken,” he said, “according to the Charter now, and the court records, one of them [a Juvenile Court judge] can be appointed by the County Commission. So I think that could be permission for upgrading the office. No one in the original ruling of the Court said they had to go back to the state legislature. So hopefully, with the legislative way, that can occur because we do need more judges on the Court.”

“So you support the proposal?” Sugarmon was asked.

“Certainly,” he said.

“That’s news. Welcome news,” a surprised Mulroy said.

Note that Sugarmon cited the Shelby County charter, not the state law invalidated in 2007 by the state Court of Appeals.

And consider the possibility that a newly empaneled County Commission might act on what Sugarmon says is by the authority of the Charter and vote again for a second Juvenile Court judge. If Sugarmon, now on record as advocating a second judge, were to be elected, he would obviously decline to claim a legal standing to oppose such an action, unlike  Person in 2007.

There could be more legal bridges to cross, of course.

As of this writing, Judge Michael has not expressed an opinion on the value of a second Juvenile Court Judge.

In endorsing Sugarmon, currently a city judge, for election as Juvenile Court Judge, Mulroy had recounted his own concerns about alleged outmoded procedures in the D.A.’s office and said, among other things, “We need a new approach. We need change. And real change is only going to happen if we have change at the top. Now, the situation I described accurately describes my race for District Attorney. But it also accurately describes the situation at Juvenile Court, which is why I am very pleased to be here today to say that I am endorsing Tarik Sugarmon for Juvenile Court Judge. That is one reason why I’m doing it.”

In his turn, Mayor Harris commented on an incident at nearby Cummings Elementary in which a child was discovered to have brought a gun to school. “Behind us, of course, you see Cummings Elementary School, the site of such tragedy. But that doesn’t mean that this is a site … where we’re gonna throw away our kids. We know that no matter what happens in the lives of young people in Memphis and Shelby County, they all have potential, and we all have to remind them that their future is bright and there is opportunity ahead of them. So I’m pleased to support Judge Sugarmon, because he’s the right kind of candidate for this moment.”

Categories
News News Feature

Crime & Punishment

To the untrained ear, Memphis mayoral candidate Jim Strickland’s plan to reduce crime seems reasonable.

“We need to have zero tolerance for violent crime,” said the Memphis City Council member during a debate last month.

But when he elaborates, he stumbles and disappoints.

“And when I say that, I mean right now, if a juvenile commits a violent act on another human being, they are not automatically taken down to juvenile court,” he continued. “That’s not zero tolerance. That’s the exact opposite. They need to be taken down to juvenile court.”

With that statement, Strickland ignores the mountains of research about young minds and the yawning school-to-prison pipeline.

He brushes away this nation’s shameful history of policing black bodies and, worst of all, overlooks recent history at Shelby County Juvenile Court, which treats black children more harshly than white kids.

His rhetoric isn’t quite a dog whistle, but it’s pandering to our basest instincts.

In theory, a civilized society acknowledges that children and teens, their developing brains incapable of consistent impulse control, deserve more care and compassion than adults.

But in practice, the adult instinct to protect children crumbles under the weight of racial stereotypes. In fact, a 2014 study published by the American Psychological Association found that police officers surveyed saw black boys as 4.5 years older than they were and less innocent.

The most recent context for Strickland’s tough-on–crime stance is a handful of videotaped brawls of black “teen mobs,” as branded by local media. One cell phone video captured an attack at an East Memphis Kroger grocery store (read: supposed to be safe). Another video showed a fight at the once-highly regarded White Station High (read: where fights aren’t supposed to happen).

Through this lens, Strickland’s pleas to enforce the curfew laws sound like smart public policy.

But the relevant context takes a wider view of history, stretching back to Reconstruction and the birth of the nation’s Jim Crow curfew laws, designed to restrict the movement of formerly enslaved men and women.

Follow Strickland’s plan to its logical conclusion in a predominantly black city, and juvenile court will overflow with children whose chief mistake was knuckling up at school or in their neighborhoods.

Private schools, which house the overwhelming majority of the city’s white school-age children, can shield their students’ bad behavior from the public eye.

But for public school students, most of whom in Memphis are black, the hammer of indiscriminate zero tolerance policies falls hard.

According to a recently released report on school suspensions and expulsions in Southern states, researchers found that “[B]lacks were 23 percent of students in school districts across the state [of Tennessee], but comprised 58 percent of suspensions and 71 percent of expulsions.”

Factor in the local evidence, and Strickland’s crime-fighting strategy goes from ill-advised to indefensible.

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) determined that Shelby County Juvenile Court treats black children more harshly than white children.

“Black children are more likely to be detained pre-adjudication, less likely to receive warnings and lesser sanctions, and more likely to be transferred to criminal court,” wrote DOJ civil rights investigators in a scathing report.

Just this July, the federal monitor reported that the court has shown a “serious lack of progress” in reducing disproportionate minority contact. “Although the overall number of youth held in secure detention has decreased, a racial gap remains and, in fact, has increased, and race still matters once all other factors are considered,” the monitor wrote.

It gets worse: The Memphis metro area has the nation’s highest rate of “disconnected youth,” defined as people between the ages of 16 and 24 who aren’t in school or employed.

The burden of a criminal record makes residents virtually unemployable and ineligible for many college loans, decimating their chances to build wealth and, in doing so, gain true freedom.

Flawed criminal justice policies have disastrous results for communities of color. Strickland, the only white mayoral candidate with a chance to win, should know this.

He has time to amend his platform before the October election, although a more nuanced approach may alienate his Poplar-corridor base (read: mostly white and more affluent than the rest of the city).

But an informed, evidence-based crime-fighting plan is the responsible thing to do — for Memphis’ children and the city’s future.

Categories
News News Feature

Flawed Justice in Memphis

My parents wanted me to become a lawyer.

While lawyering is a noble profession, covering court cases and observing the inequities of the criminal justice system as a reporter is as close as I want to be to fulfilling my parents’ wishes. It doesn’t take a genius to realize our justice system is inherently flawed. It caters to the rich and powerful. It demeans and stereotypes those of color who also happen to compose the lowest rungs on our socio-economic ladder. It also provides loopholes for a growing youthful criminal element to take full advantage of.

Let’s start with those who have the money to delay and prolong their eventual day in court. The latest example is Memphis businessman Mark Giannini. He was originally charged with raping a woman hired to clean his mansion. But, after securing the legal services of “dream team” attorneys Steve Farese and Leslie Ballin and posting more than a $100,000 bond, no one told him he couldn’t leave town. Finally, a Shelby County Grand Jury indicted him on not just on the two counts of rape, but four additional counts of aggravated rape involving other women. Giannini was arrested in Florida.

We can assume he thought it necessary to take a vacation respite from his alleged hedonistic lifestyle. If it had been any of us of lesser means, we would have been buried so deep in jail after the initial charges, we’d have to have a new zip code. Some day, after years of jurisdictional motions, Giannini will presumably have to face the women he allegedly violated.

One of the most disturbing “justice” trends in Shelby County continues to be how the system fails to effectively deal with youthful offenders. My Fox-13 colleague Matt Gerien recently exposed the existence of a document called the Detention Assessment Tool (DAT). It is a points-based system available to Memphis Police officers to be used in regards to the arrests of juvenile offenders. Every officer has access to a juvenile offender’s score, which can determine whether, after an arrest, they will face juvenile detention or simply be allowed to walk away. Points are accrued based on the severity of their offenses and their past record. Nineteen or more and you’re headed for the slammer.

Here’s the scary part. The juvenile offenders and their gang leaders know all about this as well. By keeping up with their own score, they can be sent out like little criminal guided missiles to commit crimes with the knowledge their DAT score can put them back on the streets the next day, if they’re picked up. Needless to say, it’s provided plenty of frustration for the Memphis Police Department and prosecutors.

One of my personal peeves is the ease by which repeat offenders can hire high-priced attorneys to represent them. Don’t get me wrong; I understand everybody who faces pending criminal charges is allowed to seek the best legal representation possible. Just ask Mr. Giannini. However, the case of Robert Sanders and how he managed to also secure the retainer to hire noted defense attorney Ballin is baffling.

Sanders is facing 25 counts of attempted first-degree murder in the wake of a New Year’s Eve shooting that began when he allegedly got in an argument inside a nightclub. Police say Sanders got in his car and then followed a bus-load of people to I-240 where he opened fire, wounding five people. Two of the victims remain in critical condition. The 32-year-old Sanders had previously been arrested twice on charges of cocaine and gun possession. So, why wasn’t he behind bars already? Where did he get the money to hire one of the best attorneys in town to represent him in court? Now with a $5 million bond, will he pull another monetary rabbit out of the hat to get himself back on the streets?

Shelby County Criminal Court judges have the ability to ask where the source of bond money comes from, but apparently that doesn’t extend to what and how the accused paid their attorneys.

It’s these legal shenanigans that erode the credibility of — and faith in — our justice system. We handcuff police in their ability to make valid arrests. We allow habitual offenders to use their ill-gotten gains to grease their paths to freedom when they come before the bar of justice. We allow those with means to delay and divert cases, giving the public the impression they are above the law.

Sorry, Mom and Pop. Being a lawyer just wasn’t for me.

Les Smith is a reporter for WHBQ Fox-13.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Courting Collegiality

Having previously editorialized in favor of a second Juvenile Court judgeship, we have no objection to the outcome of Monday’s 8-5 vote by the Shelby County Commission — a party-line vote except for Republican commissioner Mike Carpenter’s persuasive presence on the prevailing side — to move in that direction.

But we are not unsympathetic to the complaint of several GOP members that party politics played too large a role in the proceedings — especially in the way the judgeship issue was rushed up by the commission’s new Democratic majority in the immediate wake of last year’s election. The hastiness of their action was clearly a reaction to the victory of current Judge Curtis Person, a longtime Republican eminence in the legislature. (It is everybody’s expectation that the appointed second judge, if it comes to it, will be former U.S. attorney Veronica Coleman, whose background is Democratic and who ran second to Person in a multi-candidate race.)

It is not quite accurate for Commissioner Deidre Malone, a Democrat and the prime mover behind the winning resolution, to respond to Republican complaints, as she did Monday, by protesting that she herself had served four years on the short end of a 7-6 partisan split the other way. She had no closer ally on that prior body than former Commissioner Bruce Thompson, a Republican whose ideology was conspicuously right-of-center. Indeed, the shabby cloth-covered red chair she now uniquely occupies is a vestige of Malone’s having followed Thompson’s lead in resisting, on cost-conscious grounds, the new leather chairs accepted without complaint by other commissioners.

That openness to collaboration on Malone’s part extended to substantive matters, not just cosmetic ones. Just as she and Thompson waged a common struggle against pell-mell development, she and former Commissioner John Willingham, a maverick Republican, often found themselves on the same side of taxation issues. Race and party and the other famous political divides rarely seemed to be primary motivations — either for Malone or for the rest of her colleagues back then.

They are now — as typified by Commissioner Sidney Chism’s passionate and no doubt sincere declaration that, for him as an African American, the court change voted on Monday was in the interests of “people who look like me, walk like me, and talk like me.” And by the insistence of Commissioner Henri Brooks on hauling newly installed Judge Person before the commission like some juvenile offender himself, as well as her demand, prior to any definitive demonstration of wrongdoing, that the court be the subject of a Justice Department investigation.

Much more like it was the commission’s 12-1 vote Monday to go ahead with a previously proposed $50,000 study of court procedures. Maybe, as GOP commissioner Joyce Avery, the lone holdout, protested, it was “cart before the horse,” but, as everyone knows, a court challenge to the court change is in order, and it surely won’t hurt to do some serious and collegial thinking about the future structure of Juvenile Court, whether or not the horse goes back into the stable in the meantime.