>> Assembly Democratic Evan
Goyke is a former public
defender who sits on the
Criminal Justice and Public
Safety Committee.
We spoke with him at the capitol
and started by asking his
reaction to these bills.
>> They are addressing a crime
problem in the reverse order.
So Lincoln Hills,
which is the only type one,
secure location for juveniles in
the state of Wisconsin,
is a broken institution.
It's still under investigation.
There are lawsuits pending.
And even aside from that,
evidence tells us that that
model,
one big institution far away
from the population centers of
the state, is less productive.
It has less rehabilitative
ability and we have to fix that
setting.
Fix our juvenile incarceration
system before we start sending
more kids to prison.
So I think that there are,
you know -- deterring crime is a
laudable goal,
but if you're not fixing the
institution that we now know is
broken,
you should stop sending kids
there before you fix that
problem.
>> What about the intent of the
bills,
which is to combat crime
perpetrated by whom the authors
call habitual,
violent offenders?
>> So I think there is a nugget
of truth in that language.
That there are a very small
number of people,
young people or old people,
that commit a lot of crime.
And targeting those individuals,
whether that's through treatment
or through incarceration,
is smart.
But the bills that we're talking
about don't do that.
They cast a very wide net.
And they will not have the
deterrent effect that the author
is promising.
And I think you and I can
probably agree 15-year-olds and
16-year-olds probably aren't
watching this program.
They probably aren't watching us
debate these bills.
They're impulsive young people.
So whether or not,
something has ten years or five
years or three years,
isn't sinking into the mind of a
young people.
It just isn't.
That's just the nature of being
young.
So our approach to deterring
crime needs to be different.
>> So you don't think that
people, quote,
on the street know that all of a
sudden they can get a lot more
time and they might rethink
their actions?
>> Some maybe.
Sometimes I'm sure that happens.
But I can tell you just in my
neighborhood that that -- if I
stop the random person walking
down the street in my
neighborhood and ask them what's
the going criminal penalty for
x, y and z, they wouldn't know.
They wouldn't know.
>> Authors call these bills a
victim prevention package.
You represent Milwaukee as
you've just suggested.
What better way then to punish,
deter and rehabilitate juvenile
offenders?
>> Sure, well first on the label
that these are a victim package.
Pay attention.
The bills do nothing for crime
victims.
They don't add services.
They don't add access to
treatment or rehabil -- it
doesn't improve the crime victim
fund in the state of Wisconsin.
So the promise of these bills
being victim-centric is that
they'll deter crime through
heightened criminal penalties.
For 40 years in this state,
we've increased criminal
penalties.
And it hasn't deterred crime.
Since I've been elected in 2012,
the legislature has passed 50
bills that have either increased
criminal penalties or created a
new crime.
And we've passed zero that
reduce those penalties.
But crime is going up.
So it simply doesn't work.
So what is the alternative?
The alternative is early
intervention.
And this is going to sound maybe
a little bit hard for some
people to really understand,
but early childhood education,
zero to three,
following these kids through the
system,
wrapping them with services and
with love and support as they
age through educational systems
is the best way to deter crime.
If you go to Lincoln Hills today
and you did a survey of all of
the kids that are there.
How many of those youth had a
CHIPS case,
a Child In Need of Protection
and Services.
The warden tells me it's
somewhere between 80% and 90%.
That means sometime in their
life they had neglect or abuse.
Some trauma happened when they
were younger.
And we see often very risky,
bad behavior as a result of some
trauma that that young person
can't process.
So fixing the trauma is how you
deter the behavior.
>> A certain number of judges,
as you know,
are reluctant if not refusing
altogether to sentence juveniles
to Lincoln Hills.
If these bills became law,
what kind of pressure does that
put on this system?
>> It sends a clear message to
judges that the legislature,
the elected officials of the
state of Wisconsin,
want judges to send more youth
to Lincoln Hills.
It's very dangerous.
And if you give them that nudge,
they'll send the kids there.
And the bills greatly broaden
the number of crimes that would
be called serious juvenile
offender program.
That's a program currently
reserved for very risky,
very violent kids.
And under some of these
proposals,
we would potentially lump a
retail thief or a drug processor
into the same category as an
armed robber.
And that's not right.
The system -- Lincoln Hills is
not designed for that type of
child.
And it shouldn't be used.
It's an overreaction to their
behavior.
This is again something that's
kind of hard for people to
understand,
but sometimes incarceration
makes a kid worse.
So we know that if a good kid
who's low-risk and maybe does
something impulsive but has a
good foundation and will grow up
to not re-offend.
If we put him in a cell with a
kid that is very high-risk,
the good kid is not making the
bad kid better.
It's the other way around.
And that's why parents worry
about who their kids hang out
with.
And that's why my mom made me
call from my sleepover when I
was 12 to verify I was where --
she didn't want me hanging
around the wrong crowd.
These bills have the potential
of sending low,
non-risky kids into the very
last setting we should be
sending them, into a prison.
>> We need to leave it there.
Thanks very much.
>> Thanks.