When Nebraska inmate Jeremy Herman is released sometime over the next year, he’ll have a lot to learn.

After 19 years behind bars, he has never used the Internet. The first and only time he saw an iPod, he thought it was a CD player’s remote control.

But Herman, now 36 and serving his last year for a kidnapping that resulted in his friend’s death, says his most important change came long before he learned last week that he would be released instead of serving the life sentence he agreed to.

It was years ago — he can’t recall the date — when he heard he had been forgiven by his victim’s mother, Mona Schlautman.

On Oct. 8, 1992, Herman picked up Schlautman’s son, Jeremy Drake, in a Mustang. An acquaintance, Christopher Masters, sat in the back seat.

Herman and Drake were close — one year apart in school, they worked together and slept over at each other’s houses. Had Drake survived, Herman says now, he could have changed the world.

“This is a kid that could have been a political figure,” he said.

The goal of the trip was to learn who had stolen Herman’s car stereo speakers. The plan, inspired by Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, was to drive Drake around and scare him into talking.

Click here to read more on The Omaha World-Herald website.

Although you know your teenager takes some chances, it can be a shock to hear about them.

One fine May morning not long ago my oldest son, 17 at the time, phoned to tell me that he had just spent a couple hours at the state police barracks. Apparently he had been driving “a little fast.” What, I asked, was “a little fast”? Turns out this product of my genes and loving care, the boy-man I had swaddled, coddled, cooed at, and then pushed and pulled to the brink of manhood, had been flying down the highway at 113 miles an hour.

“That’s more than a little fast,” I said.

He agreed. In fact, he sounded somber and contrite. He did not object when I told him he’d have to pay the fines and probably for a lawyer. He did not argue when I pointed out that if anything happens at that speed—a dog in the road, a blown tire, a sneeze—he dies. He was in fact almost irritatingly reasonable. He even proffered that the cop did the right thing in stopping him, for, as he put it, “We can’t all go around doing 113.”

Click here to read more on the National Geographic website.

Michelle Murray traveled nearly 400 miles – from Los Angeles to Sacramento – on a one day trip late last month to speak with her elected officials about the importance of Senate Bill 9. The California Assembly was only days away from voting on SB 9, a bill to end life without parole prison sentences for youth in California.

Michelle wasn’t alone on her trip. With her were other loved ones of people serving and family members who have fallen victim to violence. Together, along with a diverse coalition of faith leaders, students, and advocates, these families were united in their call for fair and just sentencing of youth.

Across the United States, more than 2,600 people have been condemned to prison for the rest of their lives, with no hope of ever being released, for crimes committed as youth. Nearly 300 of these individuals, including Michelle’s brother, are in prisons across California.
In the three weeks that I spent in Sacramento leading up to the vote on SB 9, I had the privilege of working alongside fierce advocates like Michelle. I was inspired by their dedication and unified message throughout the campaign, even during times of uncertainty. This unity was especially apparent during the final stretch before the vote as faith leaders held a day of prayer and action, youth from Los Angeles took an overnight bus to Sacramento to speak with their elected officials, and people from around the state and nation literally jammed legislators’ phone lines with calls of support.

Click here to read more on the Justice Policy Blog.

Three days before he died, Terrell Sherrills encouraged his sister Oya to attend Humboldt State University.

The 18-year-old from Watts had just finished his first semester at HSU and was home for the holidays. One night in January 2004, Terrell Sherrills attended a party and was shot. According to Oya Sherrills, who now lives in the Bay Area, the person who shot her brother was a 16-year-old gang member who has never been arrested.

”I was extremely distraught and depressed,” she said, adding that she was 15 years old at the time. “We were close. It took me a long time, years, to really work through my pain around it. But at the same time, I would always hesitate — and I know that he would want me to hesitate — in using the tragedy of his death to justify the injustice of exorbitant prison sentences for youth.”

Click here to read the full article.

MPR’s Phil Picardi spoke with St. Thomas Law Professor Mark Osler, who says juvenile criminals always deserve an opportunity for parole. He’ll be debating Jeanne Bishop. She’s a public defender in Cook County, Illinois, which includes the city of Chicago.

Click here to listen to the debate on MPR’s website.

Jordan Brown, who was just 11 when he was charged with killing his father’s pregnant fiancee, will be tried as a juvenile, a Lawrence County judge ruled Tuesday, ending more than two years of uncertainty about how the boy’s high-profile case would be handled.

Transferring the case to juvenile court “will serve the public interest” because Jordan is “amenable to treatment, supervision and rehabilitation as a juvenile,” Common Pleas Judge Dominick Motto wrote in his decision.

The ruling means Jordan, who turns 14 this month, will face the equivalent of a trial before a judge, rather than jurors. That could happen as soon as next month, said Dennis A. Elisco, one of the boy’s attorneys. Prosecutors say Jordan fatally shot Kenzie Houk, 26, with a 20-gauge shotgun as she slept in their New Beaver farmhouse in February 2009. Her unborn son, who was nearly full term, also died.

Jordan can no longer be tried in adult court, where if he had been convicted of first-degree murder, he would have been the youngest person in the country to serve a life sentence in prison without parole. If he is found delinquent in juvenile court, the state cannot incarcerate him beyond his 21st birthday.

A few months ago, I spent the day meeting with a group of family members who have had their lives changed forever by acts of violence. Nobody there would have chosen to be a member of this group — all of us had either lost a loved one to murder, or had lost a loved one in an entirely different way.  Many brothers, sisters, sons and daughters were sentenced to die in prison for a crime committed in their youth.

My sister Wendy was a therapist who was passionate about supporting young people with mental health problems.  Almost 20 years ago she was murdered by one of her patients.  All these years later, I only now am at a place where I can consider this crime from a position of empathy.  I understand that I can choose what meaning to make of this experience.

I will never “get over” her death nor do I expect to shed the feeling of loss and deep sadness that comes from not having her in the world. She was truly a bright light in the world. She was my big sister and I looked up to her. I admired her commitment to justice, her warmth, her seemingly endless energy.

Click here to the full article on the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange website.

Youth can change, grow

Re “Bill that would allow resentencing in heinous juvenile crimes is flawed” (Viewpoints, Aug. 21): Margaret Bengs’ viewpoint dismisses the special capacity of youths to change and grow. As a former federal prosecutor, I understand well the impact of violence on our communities. Serious crimes demand serious punishment, but at the same time, our justice system should encourage and reward meaningful rehabilitation. Senate Bill 9 is a sensible bill that does just that.

SB 9 is modest reform

Margaret Bengs misleadingly portrays a carefully crafted, modest reform. As someone who served as a prosecutor for 15 years, I am convinced that Senate Bill 9 is balanced and fair and that the California Assembly should pass it.

SB 9 will create a mechanism enabling youths sentenced to life without parole to prove their remorse and rehabilitation later in life and petition for a new sentence of no less than 25 years. It holds youths accountable for the harm they have caused while reflecting the undisputed body of science proving that children have a greater capacity to grow and change.

Young people can change

Re “Bill that would allow resentencing in heinous juvenile crimes is flawed” (Viewpoints, Aug. 20): Margaret Bengs’ column made me wonder – how long will we accept California’s willingness to leave children to die in prison? My brother was senselessly murdered at 18 by another youth. Nothing will fill the void.

However, my brother’s murder should not be used to justify the perpetual imprisonment of youths – especially not the disproportionate number of black and brown youths sentenced to life without parole in California.

California lawmakers have repeatedly missed opportunities to bring some fairness, rationality and humanity to juvenile sentencing. They get another chance this week, and they should take it. The Assembly should pass SB 9, a bill to give offenders sentenced as minors to life without parole a chance to request a parole hearing.

Assembly Democrats who have voted against earlier versions of this bill for fear of being labeled soft on crime should look at the facts. SB 9 would not automatically open prison doors for violent criminals. It would not eliminate life-without-parole sentences for any offender, adult or juvenile. It would merely give inmates serving life terms for crimes they committed before they turned 18 a limited opportunity to seek a 25-years-to-life sentence — and for the first time, a slim chance of parole before they die.

California currently has 295 people serving non-parolable sentences for crimes they committed in their youth. Most were involved in homicides, but about 45% of them never pulled the trigger; they were convicted because they acted as lookouts or were involved in a concurrent crime when the homicide took place, usually at the hands of an adult accomplice. Underscoring the barbarity of the no-parole sentences is the fact that the actual killer often serves a shorter sentence or at least is eligible for parole.

Read more on the Los Angeles Times website