It should be over

Gouker at the May 10 hearing

On Friday, May 10th, Josh Gouker pleaded guilty to the murder of 14-year-old Trey Zwicker. This took place on the two year anniversary of the boy’s death, during a seemingly impromptu hearing. Against the advice of his attorney, Gouker faced the court and described his role in Trey’s death. He stated that he murdered the teen and he did it alone.

The judge accepted Gouker’s guilty plea. Now it is just a matter of finding out what he will receive as a sentence.

By the time the hearing concluded and news of Gouker’s plea hit the media, the question on everyone’s mind was how this recent turn of events would affect Josh Young. For just a moment it seemed as though the tide was finally turning in Josh’s favor. And it could not have come at a better time since those closest to Josh have indicated he is struggling to cope with his current situation.

However, the prosecution indicated that from their perspective nothing has changed. Despite the fact they have presented no physical evidence Josh was involved in the crime, in any way, the state is moving forward. The entire case against Josh is based on claims made by various people, such as Gouker’s cousin Cassie. You may remember Cassie from a phone call contained in the discovery files. Just as a reminder, she was the one who responded to Gouker’s question asking her who murdered Trey by saying, “you did, right?”

Not once, but twice.

Cassie’s credibility as a witness is shot for reasons that range from her contradictory statements regarding the case to her criminal past that includes having stolen items from Trey’s mother, Amanda, shortly after her son was murdered.

Gouker’s mother will not testify for either side as she is now deceased.

Josh Young at the hearing where his father pleaded guilty

The prosecution must be scrambling right now in an attempt to make some kind of reasonable case against Josh. After all, he has been incarcerated for quite some time now. It would be embarrassing for the state to admit they made an egregious mistake. Police and prosecutors would also have to deal with the backlash from Trey’s family – who still appear to believe he was involved in the murder. Who originally led them down that path you might ask? None other than the law enforcement involved in this case.

Apparently it is easier to just go ahead and present a case that, if based on the evidence currently in discovery, will prove so flimsy some will wonder how it even got to the point of a trial. That is, unless the prosecution can come up with some kind of real evidence against Josh.

I am just hoping that at the end of the state’s presentation of this train wreck of a he-said she-said case, twelve jurors will see the facts and realize the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.

Four years later: An update on Jordan Brown

Jordan Brown – age 11 when charged with murder

After more than four years of fighting for a fair trial, 15-year-old Jordan Brown may get it. On May 8, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a ruling that the guilty verdict stemming from a trial in juvenile court was “plainly contrary to the evidence“. The appeals court vacated the decision and returned the case back to juvenile court. The entire ruling is here.

And this isn’t the first time Jordan’s rights have been restored through the appellate court.

In February of 2009, 11-year-old Jordan Brown was arrested for murder in Pennsylvania. He was accused of shooting Kenzie Houk – his father’s pregnant fiancée. State law required that he receive a trial in adult court unless his attorneys were able to convince the judge to waive the case into juvenile court.

The original judge refused to allow the case to go to juvenile court, despite the fact that Jordan’s age at the time of the murders gave him the distinction of being the youngest person to face a life without parole sentence in the United States. The judge based his decision on the finding that because Jordan would not confess to the crime he was not amenable to rehabilitation.

An appeal to the Superior Court resulted in a finding that the judge violated Jordan’s constitutional rights. The case was remanded back to the county court where the same judge then decided to waive it into the juvenile system. He also recused himself.

Jordan was tried in juvenile court after waiting more than three years to receive a trial. Judge Hodge found him delinquent (read: guilty) despite a lack of physical evidence connecting the boy to the murder. The Superior Court noted the insufficient evidence presented at proceeding in juvenile court. The New Castle News summarized this as follows:

In particular, the court noted that an alleged key witness against Jordan, Houk’s daughter Janessa (who was 7 at the time of the shooting), did not testify in the juvenile proceeding. The appeals panel also saw problems with the lack of physical evidence linking Jordan to the crime, including a limited amount of gunpowder residue on his clothing and the lack of blood on Jordan and the shotgun he owned that police said had been used in the killing.

The appeals court also criticized Judge Hodge for concluding that no other person could have been responsible for the shooting. Other suspects did exist in this case, but those investigating the murders made the decision not to pursue them. Instead, the focus narrowed quickly to Jordan and it has remained there since.

The Superior Court isn’t buying it, however. In the ruling they concluded that Judge Hodge, “committed a palpable abuse of discretion”.

Now it remains to be seen what will happen in this case now that the verdict in juvenile court has been vacated. And what about Kenzie and her unborn son? If Jordan is in fact innocent of this crime – and I have believed since I first became familiar with his case that he is – then there has been no justice for Kenzie, her unborn son, or her other two children. Will there ever be now that this case has been handled so poorly from the beginning?

I like to believe that truth and justice are concepts that do not work on a timetable – that no matter how much time must pass, eventually both emerge triumphant.

More information on Jordan Brown’s Case

Jordan Brown’s three year fight for justice.

Tried and convicted in the media: Part I.

Tried and convicted in the media: Part II.

Tried and convicted in the media: Part III.

Case files and other information.

Standing against injustice

The debate regarding the treatment of youth in the United States criminal justice system is heating up. I predict that 2013 will be a year of change and progress when it comes to juvenile justice issues. Over the last few months alone I have seen more people rising to the cause then I have observed in years. I am dedicating this post to pictures from three separate rallies that were hosted on behalf of teenagers facing injustice in various forms.

__   __   __   __   __   __   __   __

Blake Layman
Rally Location: Elkhart, Indiana Prosecutor’s Office
Date: April 3, 2013
Case summary:

Blake and four other teenagers were charged with felony murder after breaking into a home they believed was unoccupied. Upon entering the home, the owner got a gun and fired shots at the group as they tried to escape. He shot two of them, fatally injuring one. Instead of charging the surviving teens with the crime they actually committed, Prosecutor Curtis Hill charged all of them with felony murder. One of the teens has already accepted a plea for 45 years in prison.

Again, these teens did not murder their friend. They did not shoot him, nor did they ever imagine he would die. However, if the prosecutor goes through with the felony murder charges and obtains convictions these teenagers will spend all or most of their lives in prison.

On April 3rd, Blake’s family held a rally on his behalf.

Friends, family, and other supporters rallied against felony murder charges involving four teenagers.

Felony murder is not the appropriate charge in this case. Blake’s family and friends refuse to allow him to suffer this injustice silently.

The Elkhart Truth printed a story about the rally, with additional pictures here.

__   __   __   __   __   __   __   __

Josh Young
Rally Location: Louisville, Kentucky courthouse
Date: April 2, 2013
Case summary:

Josh Young is set to stand trial this summer in connection with the murder of his younger step-brother, Trey Zwicker. Though the prosecution has still not presented physical evidence, within the case’s discovery files, connecting Josh to the murder, the prosecutor is moving forward with the charges. It is important to note that Josh’s own father – Trey’s step-father – has since admitted to committing the murder and to manipulating others into throwing his own son under the bus.

Many of Josh’s friends and family believe he is innocent of the charges. This includes his former foster mom, Susan Stoneburner, who firmly believes in the teen’s innocence. In response to the judge’s decision to delay Josh’s trial for another couple of months, a group of Josh’s supporters took to the streets near the courthouse to express their distastel. Though the event was somewhat impromptu, it sent a strong message.

Those who believe in Josh will not give up this fight.

Friends, family, and other supporters rallied in front of the court to express their belief in Josh’s innocence.

Those who attended communicated the same simple message: “Free Josh Young”

Josh will stand trial jointly with his own father – the person who originally accused him of committing the crime before admitting he was the real perpetrator.

__   __   __   __   __   __   __   __

 

Robert Richardson
Rally Location: Bel Air, Maryland Courthouse
Date: January 16, 2013
Case summary:

Robert is facing trial for the murder of his father in Maryland. In the days, weeks, and months following the crime people began to emerge to describe stories of suspected verbal and perhaps even physical abuse perpetrated on the teen by his father. Robert was reported as attending school in well-worn clothing and neighbors described hearing many loud fights – including one where the father threatened his son. This case is a tragic reminder that we all have a responsibility to stand up for children when we suspect they need help. If this had been done for Robert previously his father would almost certainly be alive.

This is not lost on those who are now very vocal about their support of the Maryland teenager. His supporter base is growing and those who have grown to care about him refuse to turn a blind eye to this terrible situation.

Robert’s supporters stood in the rain on behalf of the Maryland teenager.

Those holding signs communicated a number of different messages regarding juvenile injustice.

Those in support of Robert plan to keep standing against injustice until their voice is heard loud and clear.

A third rally for Robert is scheduled to take place on April 19 at 10 a.m. Those attending plan to meet in front of the courthouse at 9 a.m. at the Harford County Circuit Court. If you are in the area and would like to attend there are more details on this Facebook event page. Please help spread the word to anyone who might be in a position to attend.

An article about the January rally is here.

Jason Baldwin, after life without parole

Jason Baldwin stood trial at 16-years-old for three murders

Jason Baldwin spent more than half of his life in prison before he was released in August of 2011.In June of 1993, he was charged with the murders of three 8-year-old boys – Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers –  in West Memphis, Arkansas. Three teenagers were eventually tried in connection with the homicides. Jessie Misskelley was the first to receive a trial that resulted in a conviction. Jason subsequently stood trial with his best friend, Damien Echols, in 1994. Jason received life without parole, while Damien was given the death penalty.

In the nearly two decades since the murders occurred, the three have fought a seemingly uphill battle in the courts to prove their innocence. DNA testing has helped to support these claims in that none of the three convicted match DNA obtained from the crime scene.

The story behind their conviction and fight for freedom is one that has captivated countless people. However, the events that have taken place since their release and the steps each have taken to rebuild their lives is just as interesting. A quick look at the past of one of these men, Jason Baldwin, sheds some light on his most recent endeavors to raise awareness about juvenile justice and wrongful convictions.

Life in Prison

Jason was 16-years-old when he was convicted and sent to prison, presumably for the rest of his life. After his trial and transfer to prison, Jason spent two months on the diagnostic unit because officials felt it was the safest place for him given his young age and the nature of his conviction. “The administration feared I wouldn’t survive,” he told me during an interview. “They tried to get me to sign up for the suicide prevention unit.” Jason declined and opted to move on to the Varner Unit.

Jason’s initial experiences, as a teenager in prison, contrasted sharply with how he remembers it just prior to his release. When he first began serving his sentence he was the target of significant violence. “I’ve had my skull shattered,” he recalled, “…My collar bone broken.” He had to learn to adapt to the volatile conditions in the adult prison system quickly. “I just tried to treat everyone with respect,” he explained. “But I stood my ground and didn’t take any crap from anybody.”

The light at the end of the tunnel for Jason was the documentary film release of Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills in 1996. Jason believes that Paradise Lost helped to corroborate what he had been expressing to those around him since his arrest – that he was innocent of the triple homicides for which he was convicted. The film’s release marked a turning point for Jason by changing the way people viewed him inside and outside of prison. The movie also sparked the movement that would eventually lead to the release of all three – who became known collectively as the West Memphis Three.

In prison Jason encountered others who were sentenced as juveniles and given life without parole. He came to understand the complexities of the prison system – especially as it pertained to the incarceration of youth and the imprisonment of those wrongfully convicted.

I asked Jason what he thought about life without parole sentencing for those who are innocent of the crime as well as those who did in fact have involvement. “It does not matter the length of the sentence when you condemn any person for a crime they did not commit,” he said in response. “One moment of incarceration is too long for the innocent.”

Jason then turned his attention to the matter of juvenile life without parole in general. “I was raised with lifers. I would personally love to see many of these guys granted their second chance at living free.” He then added, “On the flip side I’ve met people who I believe are not ready to live in free society. That is not to say that the future won’t bring change for them as well…there are those that I feel deserving and others not at this juncture for that second chance.”

Holly has stood by Jason for over a decade. The two now call Washington their home.

Starting Over

Immediately after Jason’s release he and Damien went to the Department of Motor Vehicles in Marked Tree, Arkansas to get a state ID. The following day, he and others traveled to Washington with Eddie Vedder and stayed in his beach house. He quickly took a liking to the Washington area and has remained there since. He lives with his girlfriend, Holly Ballard, whom he met while he was incarcerated. She learned of his case after reading Mara Leveritt’s book, Devil’s Knot.

The two now spend time together doing what they both enjoy, such as riding bikes and watching movies. Jason has also caught up on some of the things he missed out on while he was in prison, such as learning to drive a car.

Jason, Damien, and Jessie’s release from prison was a dramatic and controversial event. Jason was initially reluctant to take the Alford Plea because he wanted the opportunity to achieve exoneration and clear his name. Even now – nearly two years after the agreement was signed – Jason acknowledges that it has complicated exoneration efforts. “It’s tricky now,” he said. He still remains hopeful in this regard though. “That’s where all these films come into play. They put pressure on all the people in Arkansas to do the right thing.”

While discussing the present status of Jason’s case, I asked if he had an opinion as to who may have perpetrated the crimes. He told me that he did not know who committed the murders. Like so many people personally touched by the tragedy, Jason would like definitive answers. However, he was clear he would never want to make the mistake of accusing the wrong person or people. He maintains an open mind as new information continues to come to light about the murders that happened nearly twenty years ago.

After his release from prison, Jason eventually became involved in the film version of Mara Leveritt’s book, Devil’s Knot. He described approaching those in charge of putting the movie together because of concerns Damien had about the direction of the script. He met with Elizabeth Fowler and inquired about the approach they were taking with the film. She invited him to take a look at the script and recommend changes. Jason took her up on the offer and went on to become an executive producer of the film.

Jason described the film version of Devil’s Knot as a broader view of what happened to West Memphis when the murders took place. It stars Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth, among others. Jason said the film shows “how a community can be so hurt that they will sacrifice innocence.” He talked about the experience of being on the film set with Pam Hobbs, the mother of Steven Branch. He was impressed with the love and respect those working on the film paid to her, saying that it was comforting to see the healing she experienced as a result. He described the work as “one of the greatest things I have done or experienced in my life.”

The film is scheduled for release toward the end of this year.

Jason – free at last

His Advocacy

Since his release, Jason has maintained a balance between building a new life outside of prison and his sense of commitment to helping others. He has been attending college on a scholarship established through Eddie Vedder’s Vitalogy Foundation. He is close to earning his associate’s degree and plans to continue his education and obtain a bachelor’s degree at the local university.

In 2012, Jason was invited by an organization to attend the oral hearings before the United States Supreme Court for Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama. He gave a speech at a luncheon that took place afterward. Months later the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that struck down life without parole as a mandatory sentence. Though juveniles may still receive life without parole sentences, the courts are now required to use discretion. Judges must consider potentially mitigating factors such as a person’s age at the time of the crime and degree of involvement.

On February 5th of 2013, Jason testified in support of Washington House Bill 1338. The bill proposed changes to the state’s approach to the long-term sentencing of juveniles in the system. Jason began his speech with the following: “My name is Charles Jason Baldwin and at the age of 16 I was tried and wrongfully convicted for three counts of capital murder in the state of Arkansas. Facing the death penalty, I was instead given life without the possibility of parole. Both of these sentences present the harrowing aspect of dying in prison, which is unfathomable to a juvenile who should have his whole life ahead of him. In the end I would serve more than 18 years of that sentence – more than fifty percent of my life – before finally being released.”

During his testimony he touched on some of his experiences in prison and how he made a conscious decision to go into that environment with an open mind.  This enabled him to see the people he was incarcerated with as human beings. He also noted how he personally observed the growth of those sentenced to life without parole during his time as substance abuse counselor and GED teacher. “I can list a great number of these individuals whom I believe are redeemable and deserve a second chance.”

Jason closed his testimony by saying he made a promise to those he was incarcerated with that he would not forget them. “Today I’m here to keep that promise. For the remorseful inmate who has turned his life around, I say that we must grant this person mercy. We prove in doing so that life cannot be disregarded or thrown away. All life is sacred and worth a second chance for those who honestly seek it. This is possibly the greatest lesson I learned as a former inmate, serving juvenile life without the possibility of parole.”

Most recently, Jason co-founded a new organization known as Proclaim Justice. I asked him to provide some insight into the mission of the organization and how it came about. “Proclaim Justice was put together in an effort to prevent and prevail over wrongful convictions,” he began. “Injustice occurs everywhere in the world. It is a complicated issue, the factors of which can range from shoddy policy work to downright abuse of power.” He explained that he was fortunate because HBO filmed his trials, providing the world with an intimate view of the trials and convictions. Without the documentary, no one would have had the opportunity to view “the surrounding atmosphere that contributed to that injustice.”

Jason, Damien, and Jessie were heavily scrutinized by local media covering the trials, but Paradise Lost was a powerful reminder that the media may also help to compel people to take action in the face of perceived injustice. Armed with this knowledge, John Hardin who has extensive experience in media relations, approached Jason about founding an organization that would focus on bringing attention to specific cases of injustice. “We believe that by bringing awareness to the other side of cases where there is injustice that discussions can be made to correct and prevent these wrongs,” Jason said of the organization’s objectives.

I interviewed John about the organization and his decision to partner with Jason. John described Jason to me as “activist-minded”. He went on to say, “I know he’s got a passion for working the rest of his life to help people who are in the same situation he was in.”

Though Proclaim Justice is still in its beginning stages, the organization has already signed on to help two people incarcerated within the Arkansas prison system, such as Daniel Risher and Tim Howard. John has also been assisting an organization known as Centurion Ministries with the case of Benjamine Spencer. Following Spencer’s conviction in relation to a 1987 murder, a judge declared during a 2008 hearing that he was innocent. Three years later the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the judge’s finding. To date Spencer has served 26 years in Texas for a murder that many believe he did not commit.

John and Jason have high hopes for the organization, but recognize it will take a great deal of work to reach the goals they have established. Both seem fully committed to the cause, however.

Though it is hard to predict what is in store for Jason in the future, it seems he is on a unique and promising path. I was impressed with what Jason has already accomplished in the fairly short amount of time he has been released. If the past is any indicator, he will likely go on to achieve great things. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the much-needed change he helps to ignite.

For more information about Proclaim Justice, click here to go to the organization’s site.

Trial by convenience

Damien Echols (left) and Jason Baldwin (right) stood trial together in 1994

In cases where two or more people are charged with the crime of homicide, the question about whether or not to try the accused together is almost always raised. Theoretically, trying two people for a single crime appears to make sense because it decreases the costs and time associated with multiple trials. This also reduces the trauma experienced by families and friends of the victim when exposed to these trials.

However, the truth of the matter is that combined trials usually contribute to an atmosphere of prejudice against at least one of the defendants. When deciding if this approach is truly responsible, one might ask if it is appropriate to favor efficiency over a defendant’s right to a fair trial. If you are undecided on this issue, perhaps the following cases will help demonstrate why combining trials is an unjust practice.

West Memphis, Arkansas

In the summer of 1993, three teenagers in West Memphis, Arkansas were arrested and charged with the murders of three 8-year-old boys. Two of the defendants – Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols – faced trial together. The defense attorneys argued against a combined trial for several reasons. For starters, Jason’s attorney, Paul Ford, was concerned about the impact negative media coverage of Damien would have on his client. In Mara Levitt’s book, Devil’s Knot, she wrote the attorney “did not want Jason to be painted with the same broad brush as Damien”.

Ford also raised issues pertaining to the contradictory nature of some of the evidence. For example, one of the witnesses for the prosecution stated she had observed Damien on a service road in the general area where the three boys were found. However, her eyewitness account did not include Jason. This was problematic because the prosecution based their case on the claim that Jason, Damien, and another teen by the name of Jessie Misskelley, were together when the three boys were murdered.

The presiding judge, David Burnett, decided against two separate trials for Jason and Damien. His reasoning was that combining the trials was a matter of “judicial economy“. He also added that he did not feel that a joint trial would jeopardize either of the teenagers’ right to a fair trial.

The jury on that particular trial was advised to consider Jason and Damien separately in terms of their alleged involvement in the murders, but we will never know if the jury was truly able to do that. Based on the case files made publicly available, a number of people provided information to the police that directly contradicted the prosecution’s contention that Jason and Damien were together the evening the murders occurred. Providing proof in the form of alibi or eyewitness accounts that the two were separated would have significantly damaged the state’s case against all three teens. However, in a joint trial this can create confusion and hinder each of the defendants’ defenses.

An unfortunate aspect of Jason’s defense was that witnesses could have provided an alibi for Jason throughout the evening of May 5th, but they were never called to the stand. Jason’s defense rested after calling a single witness: Charles Linch. It is fair to conclude that a separate trial, combined with a more zealous defense on Jason’s behalf, might have resulted in a completely different outcome for Jason.

With that said, the three teens accused of the murders were subsequently convicted in two trials. Jessie received his trial first. Jason and Damien’s trial came second. Over the course of 18 years, a time-consuming and expensive legal battle has taken place in the appellate courts to acquire freedom for the three convicted. DNA testing has helped to support Jason, Jessie, and Damien’s claim of innocence.

In August of 2011, the three who had became known as the “West Memphis Three” were released from prison after entering an Alford Plea. Such a plea does not require an admission of guilt. Instead, it depends upon the person’s willingness to acknowledge the prosecution’s ability to meet its burden of proof in court. The precedent for this plea arrangement stems from the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.

The West Memphis Three are now free, but at what cost?

Kosciusko County, Indiana

Paul Henry Gingerich (front) and Colt Lundy (back) faced a joint trial before the two submitted guilty pleas in adult court

In 2010, 12-year old Paul Henry Gingerich and 15-year-old Colt Lundy were charged with the murder of Colt’s stepfather. Other juveniles were involved in the crime; however, the prosecution only filed to combine the trials for Paul and Colt once a judge waived both boys into adult court.

Defense attorneys for each argued against a joint trial. Colt’s attorney, David Kolbe, raised the issue of his client’s right to receive a fair trial. He noted that the age difference between the two boys was sufficient to warrant a severance. He also pointed out that a combined trial placed the prosecution at a significant advantage because it would pit the boys against each other.

Paul’s attorney provided additional reasons why the trials should remain separate. He explained that the boys were different from one another. The circumstances surrounding each of their lives were distinct. He also argued that the two boys had a different relationship with the victim of the crime, Phil Danner. Matters of culpability and involvement were also cited as issues.

Before the boys were put on trial, Colt submitted a plea of guilty to the court in exchange for a sentence of thirty years in prison. The last of the five years would be served as a suspended sentence, meaning his release from prison would occur in twenty-five years. Paul went on to plead guilty under the same conditions.

Colt proceeded to the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Paul was admitted to the Pendleton Correctional Facility. Paul has since appealed his case and Indiana Court of Appeals threw out the original guilty plea and sentence, ordering a new waiver hearing to determine if Paul should receive a trial in juvenile court. The new waiver hearing has not yet taken place. At the hearing, the court will be required to consider Paul as the 12-year-old he was at the time of the original hearing instead of the 15-year-old he is today.

So much for judicial economy, as Burnett so eloquently put it during Jason and Damien’s hearings.

Louisville, Kentucky

Josh Young (far left) could receive a joint trial with his former accuser, Josh Gouker (far right)

Josh Young is now 17-years-old. He was only 15 when his stepbrother, Trey Zwicker, was murdered in May of 2011. The police arrested Josh in connection with the crime after his father fled the state with the teen. At the time it appeared as though detectives considered Josh’s father, Josh Gouker, a suspect in the case.

Gouker and his son were arrested in Alabama in June of 2011 on gun charges. Gouker was also held on a kidnapping charge in relation to a woman who claimed he forced her to drive at gunpoint. He was released from jail in the state of Alabama during the month of September, but was remanded back into custody by October.

During this time period, Gouker contacted the detectives investigating Trey’s murder. He told them that his son had committed the crime and that he had not known about Josh’s involvement until after. His claims contradicted statements he made previously. In an attempt to prove he was telling the truth to police, Gouker orchestrated phone calls to several family members and friends. Though he tried to get various people to corroborate his claim that Josh was the perpetrator, some of conversations that took place presented clear red flags that Gouker was trying to divert suspicion off of himself by casting it onto his own son.

Eventually Gouker admitted that he had murdered Trey on his own, but by then the damage was done. Now the younger and elder Josh both stand accused of the murder. Moreover, the prosecution wants to try the two together. This, despite Josh’s defense attorney’s claim that he “plans to introduce 20 new factual items that will show the teen did not kill Zwicker, 14, by beating him with a baseball bat.”

Josh Young’s defense attorneys want him tried separately from his father. Trying Josh beside his father presents a number of hurdles for the defense, including the potential for Gouker to influence or attempt to manipulate witnesses for Josh’s defense. Discovery evidence demonstrates he has done this in the past and so there is reasonable concern he may do it again.

A combined trial would also force Josh to stand trial next to his accuser. Instead of having the opportunity to challenge his accuser in court in the traditional sense, he runs the risk of being perceived negatively when the jury learns more about Gouker. This is a similar dilemma to the one mentioned previously in which Jason Baldwin’s defense attorneys worried that he would be impacted by the evidence presented against Damien – even though much of it had nothing to do with Jason.

Gouker’s defense wants a separate trial as well.

Judge Barry Willett is expected to make a decision about trying Josh and his father separately or together on March 22. Hopefully the judge will preserve each defendants’ right to a fair trial. Only time will tell.

Ryan’s words

Ryan with his sister and mom during a December 2011 visit

Below I am posting the second guest blog, written by Ryan Holle, that gives a little insight into the basics of prison life.

<———————-> <———————->

Thinking about what next to write about is not easy. Being raised by my mom, having my grandparents and other relatives around me, the one thing that they taught me – especially my mom – is what it means to be independent. Can you imagine a woman practically raising two children by herself and trying not to be dependent on others? She did awesome and I will always be grateful for her and my family in my life.

When I graduated high school, I left home at 17 and began my independence. I maintained that and prided myself on the fact that I was able to do so. When I got locked up I lost that. In prison there are no paying jobs – not to any great extent in Florida anyway. At the prison I was last at, on a compound of over 1,200 people, there were a handful of paying jobs. If you were lucky enough to be one of the five canteen operators or the one staff barber then you were able to make something. If you don’t have anyone out on the street to help you, you are out of luck.

Some people steal to make it by. Some tattoo, some deal in drugs, etc. That is just the nature of prison. In prison they give you three pairs of blues (that’s your uniform), three shirts, three boxers, three socks, two towels, two wash clothes, and a pair of what everyone nicknames “Bo-Bo’s”. They are the flat bottom slip-ons with elastic on both sides. Besides that, they give you two rolls of toilet paper a week, one bar of soap, one toothbrush, and one toothpaste once a month. Everything else in on you. If you want shampoo, deoderant, shower slides, toenail clippers, food items, shoes, etc. – then it is on you to find a way to purchase them.

A lot of people out there would say, “He doesn’t need to buy food items because they give him three meals a day”. But anyone familiar with prison food would find that statement very untrue. Being an independent person and calling home and asking for help is never easy. I am always grateful for the help I do get because like I tell my family, “You help me survive.”

Ryan Holle

Life, in prison

Wendy Seelke’s 2008 graduation photo

Wendy Renee Seelke is 44-years-old. She has a Bachelor of Business Administration from Tarleton State University, a second degree, myriad certificates of completion for classes and job-related training, and has just finished a paralegal program through Blackstone Career Institute where she has earned an average of 95% on the completion exams. In addition, Wendy has completed a number of intensive programs aimed at personal growth and development.

It is important that I now also tell you Wendy is serving a life sentence in Texas for a crime that occurred when she had just turned 15-years-old. She resides at the Christina Melton Crain Unit in Gatesville, Texas. The academic and personal achievements describe Wendy as the person she is today. Everything she has accomplished has taken place in prison and though she has reason to feel proud, her positive growth is forever shadowed in her mind by her involvement in a crime that took place in September of 1983.

I was approached by one of Wendy’s close friends, Melissa Ramey, and asked to look at her case. Melissa met Wendy when the two were incarcerated together in the late 1980s. The two women never lived in the same unit but “remained close through college classes, safety classes, kites, and passed verbal messages.” For those unfamiliar with the prison environment, a “kite” is a written note between prisoners that is classified as contraband and prohibited by prison officials. It is a means of communicating with others in prison and also sometimes serves to deliver threats or warnings.

Melissa was incarcerated after receiving 20 years in prison on three drug-related charges. However, she was able to significantly reduce the time to 5 years through good time credits and by serving an additional 15 years of parole. She was open and honest with me about her charges, saying “Yes, I was dealing drugs and looking back had that judge gave me a break instead of throwing the book at me, I might have continued with my strung out on drugs path and ended up dead or completely crazy.” She went on to say, “I needed a long time out….I’ve been out 20 years and I still do not use hard drugs anymore. That five years helped me get it out of my system I guess. It also allowed me time to understand prison life and to decide I never wanted to be there again.”

We discussed the prison environment and how it has changed over the years in Texas. “In the 80′s and 90′s, prisons were asylums. The number of unmedicated mentally ill people was scary. I’m not talking depression. I mean people who have serious mental issues. There was a woman who slept four or five cubes down from me who had killed her baby in a microwave oven just ‘to see what would happen’.” Melissa then explained that people who kill babies share the lowest part of the prison hierarchy, along with child molesters. “Most will say they are there on a drug or robbery charge. The guards usually let it slip why they are there.”

Some people unfamiliar with the American prison system believe the prisons that house males are scarier than the ones responsible for female inmates. “Women are much more vindictive than men,” Melissa said, “and can be downright cruel.” She talked about how she would sometimes get a tip in prison not to eat the potatoes, or something to that effect, because someone had put powdered bleach or ground up glass into the food. Another problem with the food was that sometimes the kitchen workers released bodily fluids into it as well.

Housing young female inmates within the prison is fraught with many challenges. For one, it is simply not a safe environment. Sometimes the younger inmates are housed in Administrative Segregation – a unit intended to separate inmates from the general population. Time spent in Ad-Seg consists of solitary confinement to one’s cell for 23-to-24 hours a day. This environment was the safest Wendy’s facility had to offer a young teenager convicted of a violent crime.

Wendy as a teen in prison

Wendy is no stranger to violence in prison, however. She had not even been in prison for more than a year or two before another inmate branded her with a tattoo in her chest area that read “property of Rita”. Melissa explained that when the guards noticed the tattoo they gave Wendy a punishment of 15 days in solitary confinement. Rita did not get in any trouble and soon left the prison to go home.

Melissa reflected on how much she and Wendy had in common when they met in prison. “That could so easily have been me in her TDC boots,” she said. Melissa and Wendy also shared a difficult childhood, filled with abuse and a lack of supervision. A history of abuse is common among those in female prisons, along with substance use and abuse. The lack of parental or family involvement in the lives of those condemned to spend their natural life in prison does not resolve once a person is convicted. If anything, the problem gets worse. “I have noticed that the young kids there all had little parental support and as time went by, people moved on with their lives…writing and visiting less and less until it just stopped.” She said that once young people lose their ties to the outside world the only place left for them to turn is to the inside of the prison for a kind of replacement family, usually consisting of a gang.

She outlined the similar experiences the two had while growing up. “I see myself in Wendy in a lot of ways. We were both sexually abused from a very young age at the hands of someone we were supposed to be able to trust. The abuse went on for years. We were both physically beaten by parents and siblings…emotionally and verbally abused. We were both pretty much left to run wild in the streets. Wendy’s mother was a topless dancer and her father a biker, so I’m sure she saw and heard things kids shouldn’t even know about.”

I spent a long time reading through Wendy’s case files, including a detailed description of her childhood and prior record as a teen runaway. Wendy was born in September of 1968 to Ronnie and Betty Joe Seelke. She had two older siblings and a younger sister by the name of Tanya. At nine months old, the infant received a fatal blow to her head that resulted in her death. Wendy’s mother and boyfriend at the time, Tommy Lige Welch, were indicted for the murder of little Tanya. However, neither of the two served time for it. The charges against Wendy’s mother were eventually dismissed, and the boyfriend pleaded to a lesser crime which allowed him to serve ten years on probation.

Wendy’s case file states the following: “According to Wendy, when she was five and a half years old, she witnessed the murder of her nine month old sister, Tanya, which occurred [in] 1974. Wendy states she saw her mother hit her sister with a dog hair brush and then place the baby’s head between the mattress.” Following the death of her baby sister, Wendy was placed in foster care. Her records note that prior to the child’s murder, Wendy was referred to social services on a separate occasion because her mother had hit her in the mouth. What appeared to be cigarette burns were observed on Wendy’s hands.

After a stint in the foster care system, Wendy’s grandparents received custody of the young child. A referral was again made to social services in reference to alleged sexual abuse of Wendy by her 15-year-old uncle. Wendy was not removed from the home, however. Instead, she remained there until her grandfather died in 1981. The death of Wendy’s grandfather was traumatic because he was one of the very few people she indicated she was close with. She was then sent to live with her father, whom she did not know or have any kind of relationship with. The grandmother made the decision to send Wendy to live with her dad because “she was unable to provide Wendy with adequate supervision.”

A photo of Wendy when she was younger

It was not long after Wendy’s placement with her father that she began to view running away from home as her only truly viable option. At one point, Wendy sought a placement on her own with a family who had children she had gone to school with. Wendy ran away from that home after her grandmother gave her a series of newspaper clippings regarding the death of her little sister. This seemed a tipping point for Wendy and she went to stay with some friends in the Pasadena area. The Wilson family traveled to Houston and brought her back with them. She remained there for some time until she had a confrontation with the elder Wilson in which she reported he “attacked her and was also sexually abusive towards her.” The case files note that Mr. Wilson claimed he was upset with Wendy because she was not always cooperative with the household chores.

Wendy experienced her first residential placement at Buckner’s Youth Shelter in 1982. She continued to run away from these placements and ended up in the Jefferson County Detention. She was in and out of other similar places throughout 1982 and 1983.

I wrote to Wendy to ask if I could share her story with the readers of my blog, and also to discuss the circumstances surrounding her case with her in more detail. I wanted to learn more about the journey she has taken from a remarkably painful and abusive childhood to her life in the Texas prison system. It was difficult for Wendy to talk about her past. In addition to experiencing intense feelings of remorse and guilt, Wendy was concerned about sharing her story and potentially hurting people connected with her crime by doing so. Her biggest reservation when it came to answering questions about her case and her time in prison was that she did not want anyone to think she views herself as a victim and she did not want to hurt anyone more than she believes she already has.

She recounted her experiences with running away, explaining to me that she had run away for the last time when she found herself within the company of a group of people, looking for a way to get a ride to Florida where she could finally distance herself from her troubled past. “Not a day goes by that I don’t wish I had made different choices,” she said. “I fully accept responsibility for my part of what happened and yes, I feel that I should have gotten time. A precious life was taken – a life that mattered.”

A description in Wendy’s case files states that she talked to police about the murder openly. She did not commit the murder, but for all intents and purposes she was present and abetted the crime through her actions. Wendy was interrogated by the police without the presence of another adult or an attorney.

We went on to talk about her first year in prison. “Well,” she said, “I ended up fighting a lot. At that time, being 15, I was the youngest on the unit. I was very scared. Who wouldn’t be?” she asked me. “In Texas, doing time now is nothing compared to what it was like in the ’80′s…What stands out most in my memory was the fact they would not let me take my GED until I turned 17 because they said I was 15 and too young. So I had to wait until I became of age, and yet they felt I was old enough to stand trial and be given a life sentence.”

Another difficult aspect of being in the adult prison environment as a teenager was that Wendy did not share common interests or experiences with the other women. She told me a lot of them talked about shooting up drugs or the corners they used to hang out at to score drugs. Wendy was never involved in those kinds of activities so she could not relate.

“I think one of the hardest things for me to adjust to was the everyday violence between both inmates and officers,” she said as she reflected on those earlier experiences behind the prison walls. At first Wendy found it hard to stay out of trouble. She was housed for a time in Ad-Seg. “I was glad because I was in a single cell by myself and no one could hurt me. I could go to sleep without worrying that I was going to get jumped on.” Her mindset began to change as she grew older in prison, however. “I started taking responsibility for my actions. I started to mature and think differently. More than anything I knew I didn’t want any other teen to go through what I did.”

In prison, Wendy has looked for opportunities to help troubled youth. She was involved in a program called “Project Outreach” that is similar in some ways to the Scared Straight Program. She felt that she could use her own knowledge and experience to reach out to the teens in the program. Wendy said of her involvement, “I had my original ID at the time with the picture on it of when I came in at 15 and I would show it to them and talk with them. I would let them know how easy it is to make the wrong choice that could mess up a lot of lives.”

I talked in more depth with Melissa about her feelings about the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole, or similar life sentences that amount to the same thing. She acknowledged that while some youth do deserve to be punished for the crimes they commit, sentencing them to life is “a travesty and cruel and unusual punishment”. She added that she believes young people should always be housed at a juvenile facility until they turn 21-years-old. “I know 18 is considered an adult, but 18-year-olds, by law, are too young and immature to purchase and consume alcohol. If that’s the case, how can we justify sending a child to an adult prison?”

She enhanced her point by talking about the limited educational opportunities for minors in the adult prison system. She reiterated what Wendy had discussed with me about the GED requirements. “In Texas if you do not have a high school diploma or GED you have to get it. Well, in Wendy’s case she didn’t have either, but in Texas you have to be at least 17 to take the GED. Odd, isn’t it?…Old enough to be in adult prison with hardened criminals, but too young to take the GED test.”

Wendy Seelke in 2011

Melissa talked at length about the impact Wendy has had on her life. “Wendy has touched me in so many ways I don’t even know where to begin. She is the strongest person I know. She really has had every reason to believe she’s never getting out and yet she is not all ‘prisoned’ out. She still has hope. She’s starving for knowledge and loves to read and learn things. She still has her light inside. So many people in prison don’t have that. ‘Walking Dead’ is what we used to call them.”

In terms of Wendy’s participation in a crime, though minimal when compared to the others involved, Melissa said, “She is not a victim. She takes full responsibility for her role in the murder of Linda Richardson as well as in her day-to-day life.”

Wendy repeatedly expressed remorse for her part in the murder and carries the guilt inside of her like an organ. “I live with this every day,” she said. “I have a lot of guilt behind the decision I made and the part I took. Should I have been punished? Yes, without a doubt. Should I have gotten a slap on the wrist? No. But prison does not help a child and no matter what someone may think, 15 is not grown. Just because teens commit crimes does not mean they are grown adults to be housed with grown adults. The prison system does not offer help for ‘us’. By that I mean for drug users they have places like SAFP – that’s like a drug rehab. For sex offenders they have programs. But what do they have for teens who are here for the rest of their life? Or for 30 years?”

She has found motivation to become a better person, despite the lack of hope her sentence reflects. She made the decision that she wanted to become educated and get involved in helping others who were at risk for ending up in a similar situation.

Since entering prison at the age of 15, Wendy has grown considerably. “I have changed a lot,” she said. “I have matured from a juvenile into an adult. I think as an adult.” As a teenager, Wendy found it difficult to think ahead to the future. “I never thought a lot of times; I just acted. I’m not that way now. Before I make any decision, I think of what could happen.”

She wants people to know that she is not the person she was when she was charged with murder as a young teenager. “I would just like a chance to prove that I have changed and that I am not the same. I believe it is up to the individual to want to change if change is going to occur.”

After Melissa was released from prison she lost touch with Wendy for about fifteen years. She was doing some research online one day and came across Wendy’s name, along with a couple of other names of inmates, describing how they had received a license to translate Braille. Melissa was stunned that Wendy was still in prison and so she wrote to her. She found out that Wendy had no real support from anyone in the free world. She got permission from the Warden to visit her former friend in prison and the two resumed the close friendship they shared previously.

Melissa has been instrumental in helping to encourage Wendy to pursue her goals. She also provides Wendy with the emotional support that women in prison so desperately need from people in the outside world. Melissa believes in Wendy and hopes that someday, somehow, her friend might have a second chance at a real life.

“An exercise of vengeance…”

Christine Lockheart

In July of 2012, I wrote about Iowa’s Governor Terry Branstad’s decision to commute the life without parole sentences of 38 people sentenced as juveniles. The governor made this decision on the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June regarding the unconstitionality of mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences.

Without considering each of the individual thirty-eight cases in detail, and without becoming intimately familiar with the people who committed those crimes as teenagers, the governor commuted every single one of those sentences to a mandatory minimum of 60 years before the person is given the opportunity to seek parole. I pointed out in the summer that this meant a person who committed a crime at the age of 15 would not be eligible for parole until he or she was 75-years-old.

What the governor did was reprehensible because instead of respecting a decision made by the highest authority in this nation, he chose to bypass the ruling by finding a way to deny those it affected in his state from seeking any kind of relief – regardless of the circumstances surrounding the crime, the person’s age when the crime was committed, and other potentially mitigating factors.

However, all decisions have consequences. Though governor Branstad is in a position of power that grants him considerable authority, it turns out his decision may not have been any more legal than it was moral. I plan to tell you more about that, but before I do I want to discuss one of the cases his actions have influenced directly. Following the governor’s appalling choice to commute the sentences to a 60 year minimum I began to wonder about those thirty-eight people who were condemned to spend the rest of their natural life in prison for crimes committed as youth.

When the governor went public with his decision he declared that in addition to protecting the victims associated with the crimes, he was also ensuring “the safety of all Iowans”. I was curious to know who these people were that the governor seemed to think were so violent and monstrous as teenagers that they were beyond any and all hope of rehabilitation. There’s no question that some people belong in prison and that some are simply not amenable to any kind of rehabilitation or compassion the world has to offer, but can that be said of all people who commit crimes? Should it be said, without taking the time to consider each individual case? Governor Branstad thinks yes, but he faces some serious opposition.

I’ll let you decide.

The Case of Christine Lockheart

In 1985, Christine Marie Lockheart was convicted of “aiding and abetting, and first-degree robbery”. Christine was 17-years-old when she was charged with these crimes. Subsequent to her conviction, Christine received a life without parole sentence. In 2005, she applied for a commutation of sentence that was denied by the parole board in a 5-0 decision against the recommendation. If the Iowa Board of Parole approves a commutation request it is then sent to the governor for final approval – the same governor who pulled a fast one and commuted all mandatory life without parole sentences given to juveniles to 60 years.

In 2010, Christine filed a motion claiming that her sentence of life without the possibility of parole, given to her as a juvenile, was “cruel and unusual punishment”. She was scheduled to have a hearing in August of 2010, but it was canceled a day after the Supreme Court came back regarding non-homicide life without parole sentences (Graham v. Florida). The timing was suspicious and Christine responded by filing a motion asking the court to reconsider the cancellation. That too was denied. The court then denied a request for an evidentiary hearing “to determine facts and circumstances particular to Lockheart and her sentence.”

She recently applied for commutation again and was denied.

The above delineate the legal aspects of her case in terms of how Christine and her attorney have fought the life sentence given to her so many years ago. Christine is no longer the 17-year-old teenager she was when she was first charged. Behind bars she has grown into an adult woman who is passionate about justice issues and unusually knowledgable about what is happening in the world beyond the walls that confine her.

I interviewed Christine at length about her charges, her experiences in prison, the ways she has worked toward growing as a person despite her sentence, and many other topics. I discussed her case with her attorney and one of her staunchest supporters. I also talked to Christine about the governor’s decision and how it has affected her case in particular.

The crime involved a man in his late seventies by the name of Floyd Brown. Christine was dating 24-year-old Rick Nebinger at the time. The two went to Floyd’s house one evening to obtain money. Because Christine and Floyd knew each other through the elderly man’s granddaughter, he opened the door to the couple. The three talked for a bit and then Rick instructed Christine to go outside to wait for him.

Christine did as she was asked and waited for quite some time before she observed Rick running from the home, screaming. He told Christine he had murdered Floyd and the two fled to a friend’s home. It was not long before the police found the two and charged them with murder and robbery.

Rick Nebringer was convicted and sentenced to prison as well. He died between the Supreme Court’s ruling in June and the governor’s commutation of the thirty-eight people’s sentences. The commutation decision affected both Rick and Christine. Technically speaking, Christine has now served more time than her co-defendant who committed the actual murder.

Christine does not view herself as a victim. She does not deny her involvement or place blame on others. She takes full responsibility for the choices she made as a minor. When she talks about the events leading up to the crime that ultimately resulted in a life sentence she is remorseful. She seems haunted by her inability to step back into the past so that she can change the decisions she made on that one particularly fateful night. However, Christine is also a realist and she knows she cannot change the past. This is perhaps one of the factors giving impetus to her desire to better herself.

I asked Christine how the governor’s decision has influenced her efforts when it comes to receiving a resentencing hearing. The Supreme Court’s June decision (Miller v. Alabama) was intended to give people like Christine the opportunity to receive such a hearing. The court would then consider each case individually to determine if an alternative sentence, other than life without parole, was warranted based on the circumstances surrounding the case, the person’s behavior in prison, and their efforts to grow as a person since the offense. Because of the governor’s decision to commute Christine’s sentence automatically (as well as the sentences of 37 others), she no longer has the ability to seek such a hearing.

That is, unless her attorney is able to successfully argue that the governor’s decision was unconstitutional. This may not be as unlikely a feat as it seems though. There are now five cases pending in the Iowa Supreme Court that are challenging Governor Branstad and arguing that his decision was unconstitutional. Christine explained to me that “several District Court Judges have already agreed that the Governor’s commutation to a 60 year mandatory minimum is unconstitutional.”

Another case to come up before the Iowa courts as recently as this month is that of Yvette Louisell. Yvette is currently 42-years-old and was convicted and sentenced to life without parole for a crime she committed when she was a teen. Today Yvette has a number of people who support her and approximately 20 of them showed up at a hearing for her on January 16th. One told the media that she feels “there are just too many mitigating circumstances that weren’t considered in her original trial.” She also pointed out that Yvette did not have the benefit of a good upbringing to help guide her in making moral decisions.

Christine has a bevy of supporters as well. She has a sharp and well-informed attorney who has taken up her cause from a legal perspective. She also has many outside of prison who care for her a great deal. Veronica Horowitz, for example, met Christine when she was serving a much shorter sentence in prison. “At the time,” she explained to me, “Christine worked in the prison as an inmate mentor and was one of the mentors who taught my orientation class. I thought Christine was very kind and sweet. I had a hard time understanding how she had received a murder conviction.” She acknowledged that at the time she did not know the specifics of Christine’s crime because it is rare for people who are serving life sentences to convey those details to others with whom they serve time.

Veronica got to know Christine over time, however. She and Christine spent a great deal of time talking about different issues, including recidivism among those who are released from incarceration. She told me that it was Christine who helped Veronica shape the topic she plans to eventually write her doctoral dissertation on. She explained a number of times how much of an inspiration Christine has been on her and how that influence has inspired her in positive ways. Veronica now describes Christine as “kind and positive. She is friendly and smiles often.” Christine’s pleasant demeanor is one of the qualities that drew the two women together as friends.

“Christine has a tremendous impact on my life,” Veronica said. “She opened my eyes to injustices that I hadn’t fathomed before learning her story. Christine game me insight and inspiration that I am certain will help me as I continue my education.” She is adamant that Christine does not deserve to die in prison and that she is a woman who deserves a second chance.

Veronica started a petition on Christine’s behalf, asking the governor and the Iowa Board of Parole to grant Christine parole eligibility. The petition, located here on change.org, currently has 281 signatures.

She wants people to understand that “just because a person is eligible for parole does not mean that individual will be paroled. If a person does not demonstrate that he or she is ready to return to society without endangering others then that person will not receive parole even if they are eligible.” She also added that she thinks it is “cruel and inhumane to take all hope away from a person.”

I spoke to Christine’s attorney, Gordon “Gordy” Allen, to glean further insight into the legal battle being waged within the state of Iowa. He explained that he got involved in Christine’s case after a friend contacted him and asked him to get involved. Allen previously served as the Deputy Attorney General of Iowa for 25 years.

He told me that the governor’s decision to commute is “contrary to Miller which discussed mandatory sentences and required individual consideration of facts and circumstances to make the punishment fit the criminal as well as the crime.” He cited the governor’s decision as uniform in that it did not consider each person individually, but rather treated all 38 people affected by the decision as though their circumstances were identical.

He went on to state, “We – the lawyers advising this group and two district court judges that have rules, and one country attorney who files a brief – believe the governor’s action violates Miller in that respect. We also think the mandatory minimum of 60 years is a de facto life sentence without a reasonable option for parole and is therefore illegal as well.” He added, “His elimination of the credit for good time is also a violation of the separation of powers clause of the Constitution in that he has sentenced these offenders to a greater term than is mandated by the Miller decision.”

In reference to the governor’s actions he said, “His is not an exercise of clemency, his is an exercise of vengeance.”

Allen expressed that this issue is very important to him. He pointed out, “Even those states that have capital punishment do not execute the mentally challenged defendants, or those who committed crimes while juveniles. We are the only country in the world that still sentences children to death in prison, other than Somalia of course, and they don’t have a government.” He referenced the United Nations Covenant on the Rights of the Child and the United States’ refusal to ratify the treaty as nearly 200 other nations have done.

He concluded our interview by making a bold, yet accurate statement. “Those who by reason of life experience, and neurological deficits attendant to adolescence should not be punished with the most egregious punishment meted out by Iowa, when they were according to the science, less culpable than any other adult.”

Hoping against Hope

Christine and her son

Christine has made the most of her time behind bars. In the face of an impossibly harsh sentence she continues to strive to become a better person in all ways, including emotionally, spiritually, and academically. She told me she is currently attending the University of Iowa to obtain a Bachelor of Liberal Studies. “I take classes only with the help of scholarships and friends and family. I am grateful for the blessing of this gift,” she said. “Without it I would have spent my life without an education. Long term offenders do not qualify for college funding because there is just no money for it and it just does not make financial sense to educate a person is likely to never use it as they are expected to remain in prison forever.”

“At seventeen,” Christine said, “I was a throwaway, so I am not intended by the government to ever need an education.”As a teenager Christine was pregnant and gave birth to a son. “Kids don’t even really know about adult responsibilities,” she said. “They just think they do and want to. I was pregnant and even had a child, but I just didn’t have any idea about raising a son or what he needed or what responsibility I had undertaken.” She pointed out that when juveniles are sent to adult prison they are not given the tools to develop into functional adults, but are “really just warehoused.”

In addition to working towards her BLS, Christine also takes time to help others by listening to them and providing guidance when possible. She always tries to remain optimistic, but sometimes finds it difficult to cope with the reality of her situation. “I get down and get sick of prison – sometimes more than I really should because I am blessed so much more than other lifers.”

Christine talked at length about her desire to make the environment around her better, even if it is limited to the prison grounds upon which she resides. She explained, “This prison is made on one quarter of a mile of land that I have only left four times in almost three decades, but it is also a beautiful stretch of trees, grass, flowers – and once or twice a frog or two – and I have crawled it and fixed things all over it to make it better over and over as much as I can, whenever I can, and I know that is the best I can do.”

Helping Christine

Veronica hopes to raise further awareness about Christine’s plight. She would like people to know that Christine “is a wonderful person who truly deserves a second chance.” She also wants “people to become aware of the crime she committed and the sentence imposed on her because I think her case speaks for itself in that any reasonable person would realize that Christine does not deserve to die in prison for merely failing to turn in her boyfriend after he committed a crime.  I want people to realize that juvenile courts were separated from adult courts for a reason; because children are not as developed and culpable as adults, regardless of the crime they commit, juveniles should be treated differently, the trend towards trying juveniles as  adults needs to stop.”

If you are moved by Christine’s story and feel compelled to help her there are a few ways to do it. The first is to sign Veronica’s petition for Christine, located here. The second is to write letters to the Iowa Board of Parole using the following address:

Iowa Board of Parole
Attn: A. Meulhaupt
510 East 12th Street, Suite 3
Des Moines, Iowa 50319

Letters sent on Christine’s behalf must include her full name and offender number – Christine Lockheart 0801319.

Christine reflected on all that has happened to her toward the end of our discussion. “I don’t know why I had to come here or stay here this long, or why I didn’t have a different life than this, but I really hold out for the hope that I am going to have the chance to work to make a life for myself that is better than this.  Maybe I remain this way for the people who don’t give up on me – the other lifers who don’t have any chance – or my sister who has stood beside me or the friends I have who have never given up on me – and maybe it’s the seventeen-year-old girl who screwed it all up and still hopes for a chance to make it right for everyone.”

I believe Christine does deserve a second chance at life. She has already been incarcerated for more than half her life. I can only hope that after reading this you feel as I do.

Schools taking the stand against bullying

Rochester High School, in the Rochester 3A district

The problem of bullying among children and teenagers is acknowledged by many. One need not look hard to find information on the topic – especially as it pertains to the lives devastated or ended as a direct result of it. Some people might think that accepting there is a problem is enough. Others recognize the need for further action, but  do not know what they can do individually to incite change.

I grappled with that question myself. I wanted to understand what can and must be done to proactively address this complex problem. I wondered what kind of action is necessary to ensure that children may attend school to learn – without feeling scared, uncomfortable, or even traumatized.

It took some time to even begin to uncover the answers to those questions. From an awareness raising perspective I could focus a lot of time discussing the countless students who have been negatively affected by bullying or other harassing behaviors. Many of these stories are heartbreaking. There is no question they would disturb you and move you, but only a few of them would provide any true insight into what is happening in some of America’s schools to overcome the problem. Somehow I feel that emphasis on solutions and best practices might empower people more.

For this reason, I am focusing a few of my upcoming articles about bullying on the prevention perspective. There is no question a great number of schools are handling this problem incorrectly, but I want to tell you about one that has made solving this problem a priority. I am also going to tell you how they have reduced the behavior substantially within the school’s district.

The Rochester 3A Schools

Rochester, Illinois is a small village located within the county of Sangamon. In 2006, the region’s school district, known as Rochester 3A, held a Saturday morning community engagement day. Approximately 45 members of the little community met to discuss school-related matters. The topic of bullying was raised and identified as a major area of concern among the community.

Instead of glossing over the problem, or merely vocalizing a commitment to resolving the issue, the district took steps to tackle it aggressively. The district identified the problem as a priority within the district’s strategic plan and set about implementing four primary steps. These included defining the problem and its scope, outlining a board policy in response to the problem, developing an action plan, and creating a metric for measuring progress through the use of a survey.

The Rochester 3A schools administer a comprehensive survey to staff and students every three years. The schools compare data from each survey against baseline information collected in the beginning of the program. This provides the district with measurements of the program’s efficacy and progress. The district provides a high degree of transparency with regard to its program and its surveys. Those interested in the questions and results may find the surveys here.

The Director of Educational Services, Laurie McWard, at the Rochester district is among those who have been integral to the efforts on behalf of the school. In a recent interview with me, Laurie explained that a successful bullying prevention program requires specific components. These include the following: the school and its district must make the problem of bullying a priority; training provided to staff must be frequent and consistent; the curriculum must be proactive; data gathered by the school must be analyzed regularly; the schools must administer and evaluate surveys; and the district must develop an action plan that addresses specific issues identified in the survey results.

Laurie added that her school district benefited from working with a consultant outside of the schools. She also touched on how these types of widespread prevention programs are effective because they change the culture inside of the school among staff and students. “Although we still have some issues, the majority of our students don’t tolerate bullying and this culture change starts early in their school experience.”

Laurie credits the staff, students, Board of Education, and the district’s administrative team for the program’s success to date. She also explained that a major contributor to the district’s ability to address the problem was the assistance of Dr. Michael R. Carpenter, a nationally certified bullying prevention program trainer and anti-bullying consultant through Olweus.

I inquired about how the bullying prevention program has influenced student behavior in other general areas. For example, I was curious to know if the program had caused a decline in disciplinary problems in general. Laurie gathered feedback from some of the schools administrators. “One Principal commented that his direct contact and instruction with his students about bullying – what is teasing, etc. – has had a real impact on his young students,” she said. “Another Principal also has periodic meetings with each of his grade levels to discuss any building issues and bullying is a topic he includes. He attributes his regular direct contact with students has also helped his discipline data.”

I would be interested in seeing more research in this particular area because I suspect that implementation of successful bullying prevention programs helps to reduce other types of discipline problems within the schools. It might also be interesting to see comparative data on successful bullying prevention programs and their impact on adult criminal behavior among those who attend schools with these programs versus people who attend schools that fail to address the problem.

Dr. Michael Carpenter

Dr. Carpenter, credited by Laurie as helping the school to develop and facilitate its program, provides extensive training and resources to those seeking solutions. His website, www.wagepeacetoday.com provides insight into the best and worst practices regarding bullying when it comes to school administrators, counselors, and teachers.

He agreed to talk to me about the program and the work he has done to provide schools with the knowledge and training necessary to combat bullying. He pointed out that the decision not to make bullying prevention a priority among schools and communities is much more costly than implementing proven solutions.

When asked about the biggest obstacles faced by schools when it comes to addressing bullying in an effective way he responded, “Schools want a quick fix. Schools are also so dysfunctional that accountability is the biggest problem.” He also cited financial considerations as a major barrier preventing schools from effectively handling the problem. It is important to note here that the costs associated with implementing the program within the Rochester 3A district were only about $5,000. These costs are negligible when compared with the costs associated with ignoring the problem.

I asked Dr. Carpenter to provide insight into the main reasons schools fail at this effort. “Bullying takes a systemic and comprehensive effort,” he explained. “The focus should not be on the schools but on all parts of our society.” He added that schools have an opportunity “to be a part of a joint effort to create an inclusive environment.”

Dr. Carpenter outlined critical components to addressing the problem in any school environment. The first is adult role modeling. The second is getting everyone involved, including the students, parents, the community, the educators, and bystanders. He included the following elements as well: “Weekly class meetings on bullying, character education, and civility; on-going awareness with research-based practices; teaching prevention and intervention skills; and measuring the success using reliable, valid, and consistent methods.”

I discussed with Dr. Carpenter the short-term and long-term consequences of bullying when schools fail to address the problem. He relayed some of these as follows:”Students may drop out or be absent (huge cost to education and society), health problems for those targeted – stress, depression, anxiety, lack of sleep. Targets and aggressors use more alcohol and other drugs (huge cost for health care).”

He added, “If we don’t intervene early – by age 24 – 60% of aggressors will have at least one conviction. The cost for health problems because of bullying or victimization has been estimated to be two million per individual when they reach age 35. Long term effects can be suicide or homicide.”

Laurie McWard agreed that failure to address the problem of bullying has long-lasting consequences. “Students who are bullied may have long lasting issues,” she said.

I asked Dr. Carpenter what people need to know when it comes to implementing solutions. “The focus should not be on identifying bullying behavior but identifying those behaviors that interfere with learning. Schools and staff should be mandated reporters for any behavior that impacts learning. The information should be sent to a safety team to make a decision if it is bullying. There should be strict accountability measures. Schools should use certified bullying prevention trainers who know the research literature on best practices to train their staff on bullying prevention.” He said that programs other than his may be successful provided they include critical components discussed herein.

Dr. Carpenter maintains that while the problem of bullying will never be eliminated “our goal is to reduce it.” Reduction comes from empowering members of the community, teachers, students, and administrators. “Students should have a voice in their education,” Dr. Carpenter said. “They should be making decisions. Schools should get away from rules and punishments and move toward cooperation, collaboration, and agreements. If schools model coercive, intimidating environments, it’s no wonder why schools can’t reduce bullying.”

Laurie explained that the Rochester 3A schools plan to continue working toward improving the district’s program and approach. In the upcoming year, the district plans to continue training; analyze and monitor bullying data; implement an incident reporting form; increase training in the high school surrounding character education and awareness; and put more information and resources online for parents of the school’s students.

An important lesson to take away from what the Rochester 3A schools have achieved through the help of Dr. Carpenter is that there are effective solutions when it comes to significantly reducing this problem in school. This district is proof of that and they are not alone in their success. However, such a solution requires full commitment on the part of the educators, parents, students, communities, and administrators. While there are no simple solutions, long-term efforts help schools provide a safe learning environment for students.

And ultimately, these actions save lives.

Additional Resources

www.stopbullying.gov

www.cyberbullyhelp.com

Websites for Dr. Carpenter’s Programs and Services

www.wagepeacetoday.com

www.directionalityga.org

Bullying on the big (and small) screen

In the next few months I will be publishing some articles examining the topic of bullying among children and teenagers. I will still be writing and sharing articles on traditional juvenile justice issues in between, but I really want to spend some time discussing bullying – not only as a serious problem affecting kids, but also as a contributor to juvenile delinquency and violence.

To kick this off I am sharing images from movies and television shows that have examined bullying in unique and different ways. It would be difficult to include every single film or show that has tackled the topic and so I stuck to some that I have seen. I tried to include some variation in terms of the manner in which the subject is addressed.

-

Lord of the Flies (1963)

In the 1963 film version of Lord of the Flies, Peter Brook brought the classic novel by William Golding to life. The book and the film examine topics such as the development of social hierarchies, bullying, violence, and many others. All rights reserved.

-

Carrie (1976)

The 1976 film Carrie is based on the Stephen King book of the same name. In the movie, Sissy Spacek’s character is treated poorly by her peers. Life isn’t too great for her at home either. When she snaps from a cruel prank it becomes clear that Carrie really isn’t like the other teens. All rights reserved.

-

The Karate Kid (1984)

The entire premise of 1984′s The Karate Kid was based on new-to-town Daniel Larusso’s (played by Ralph Macchio) response to being bullied and his need to find a way to resolve the issue. All rights reserved.

-

Heathers (1988)

In the film Heathers two teens cover up the murder of the school’s most popular (and vicious) bully by staging the scene as a suicide, setting off a series of bizarre and improbable occurrences. All rights reserved.

-

Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995)

Heather Matarazzo played Dawn Wiener in the 1995 film Welcome to the Dollhouse. In the movie she is incessantly bullied and her family is either clueless about it, or they just don’t care. All rights reserved.

-

Angus (1995)

Before James Van Der Beek played Dawson in Dawson’s Creek he took on the role of Rick Sanford, class bully and
athlete, in the 1995 film Angus. All rights reserved.

-

Boys Don’t Cry (1999)

The 1999 film Boys Don’t Cry was based on the life of Brandon Teena. Brandon was born as a female, but identifies with the male gender role more. He lives his life as a man, keeping the fact he was born a woman a secret. When this information comes to light the situation turns ugly for many. All rights reserved.

-

Bully (2001)

The bullied become bullies in the 2001 film Bully. Perhaps the most discomforting aspect of the movie is that it is based on a true story (and not all that loosely either). All rights reserved.

-

About a Boy (2002)

The film adaptation About a Boy is based on the book by Nick Hornby. Marcus, played by Nicholas Hoult (you are going to notice a theme pretty soon here with this particular actor), is a 12-year-old boy who is tormented by bullies at school – to the point where even the “weird” kids won’t hang out with him. He finds an unexpected friend in Will Freeman, played by Hugh Grant. All rights reserved.

-

Elephant (2003)

The 2003 film Elephant, directed by Gus Van Sant, is a Columbine-style cautionary tale. However, when all is said and done the viewer is left with myriad possible explanations (including bullying) for the dramatic event, without being given one concrete causal factor. All rights reserved.

-

Mean Girls (2004)

In the comedy Mean Girls, previously home-schooled Cady gets an education on being popular when her two friends convince her to infiltrate the school’s most popular group of females – with the intent of destroying it from the inside. The girls, known as “the Plastics” have a Burn Book where they record various insults about other students. All rights reserved.

-

Mean Creek (2004)

Jacob Estes’ 2004 film Mean Creek is a somber look at a group of kids who grow tired of being bullied and decide to teach their tormentor a lesson. It probably goes without saying that things do not go exactly as planned. All rights reserved.

-

Speak (2004)

Before the Twilight series, Kristen Stewart played Melinda in the movie Speak – a once average teenager who falls from social grace after calling the police while attending a summer party. Though it seems the poor treatment by those around her is the cause of her unwillingness to communicate verbally, it turns out she may have another reason for it entirely. All rights reserved.

-

Friday Night Lights (2006-2011)

In the TV series, Friday Night Lights, Minka Kelly played Lyla Garrity – a high school cheerleading captain whose friends turned on her following a specific indiscretion. All rights reserved.

-

2:37 (2006)

Love it or hate it, the Australian film 2:37 – directed by Marali Thalluri – shows how bullying affects different kids from the same school in disastrous and unsettling ways. All rights reserved.

-

Skins (2007-Present)

In the British television show Skins, Mitch Hewer played Maxxie Oliver – a dancer who had his share of run-ins with homophobic bullies. Nicholas Hoult was also on this series for a time. All rights reserved.

-

The Tracey Fragments (2007)

Ellen Page plays Tracey in the 2007 Canadian film The Tracey Fragments. The movie gives the perspective of a teen girl who is regularly mistreated. She is also trying to suppress a disturbing reality involving her little brother. All rights reserved.

-

Red Without Blue (2007)

Red without Blue is a 2007 documentary about two twins who struggle to find their place in a society that still cannot quite cope with the existence of more than two oversimplified forms of gender. All rights reserved.

-

Wasted on the Young (2010)

Australian film Wasted on the Young examines bullying, sexual assault, and peer social responsibility. This one is a slow starter with a dramatic (and slightly unexpected) ending. All rights reserved.

-

Easy A (2010)

Emma Stone plays Olive in the 2010 film Easy A. After telling a seemingly harmless lie to her best friend she gains a reputation for sleeping around. At first she finds the attention flattering, but it soon spirals out of control. All rights reserved.

-

Pretty Little Liars (2010-Present)

An unknown bully (or bullies?) terrorize the students of Rosewood, PA in the TV show Pretty Little Liars. Ashley Benson plays Hanna Marin – a girl who turned to bulimia to lose the weight that made it difficult for her to fit in. Maintaining her popularity and her sanity have come at a heavy price. After three seasons of twists and turns all we really want to know now (all we ever wanted to know) is who is “A”? All rights reserved.

-

Cyberbully (2011)

In the 2011 film Cyberbully, Emily Osment plays a student who is bullied online by her peers. The movie touches on both electronic forms of bullying and suicide. All rights reserved.

-

X-Men: First Class (2011)

Jennifer Lawrence (pictured next to Nicholas Hoult who has officially been mentioned in this one post three times now) plays Mystique as a teenager in X-Men: First Class. She alters her appearance to look like an ordinary person so as to avoid ridicule and other forms of harassment. All rights reserved.

-

Bully (2011)

The 2011 documentary Bully, directed by Lee Hirsch, is a stark and eye-opening film. It serves more as a wake up call than a commentary on possible solutions to the problem of school-based bullying. All rights reserved.