>> A "First Look" tonight at two
juvenile crime bills making
their way through the capitol.
Both pertain to minors who are
part of what's called the
Serious Juvenile Offender
Program.
The program is for juveniles who
commit a limited number of very
serious felonies for which an
adult offender would be subject
to life in prison and who are
judged a danger to the public.
The first bill would extend the
time a juvenile offender can be
incarcerated.
The second expands the list of
offenses for which a juvenile
can be sent to a corrections
facility.
Republican State Representative
Joe Sanfelippo is the primary
sponsor of the bills.
He joins us from Waukesha and
thanks very much for doing so.
>> Thanks for having me on.
I appreciate it.
>> So taking these bills
separately, what do you
specifically call for in
terms of extending the time that
a juvenile can be incarcerated?
>> So under our present statute,
a juvenile can be incarcerated
up to age 25,
but there's a three-year cap on
the amount of time for
incarceration.
So let's say we have a juvenile
that's 15 years old,
commits a very serious crime,
ends up in the SJOP program.
By the time they're 18,
regardless of whether or not the
system feels that they still
pose a danger to society,
they have to be let out.
And so what this bill would do
is would take the three-year cap
off and allow them to be able to
stay in incarceration longer if
the system determines that they
still are posing a grave threat.
But it also does another thing
in that sometimes these
juveniles are let out but they--
you know, before they've spent
three years in crime--
three years in incarceration.
And what we're hearing then from
the people who monitor them and
put them on supervision is that
if they know that they can't go
beyond the three years,
it just takes away an incentive
for them to try to behave a
little better once they're in
society because they know no
matter what do they can't be
sent back for that crime because
they've already hit their three
year limit.
>> Interesting.
The other bill expands the list
of crimes that could land a
juvenile who's 14 years old and
older in a correctional facility
or secured residential care
center to any adult felony
crime.
So like felony theft?
>> That's correct.
Now, again,
in conjunction with the crime
that they are adjudicated for,
the judge also has to determine
that the juvenile poses a very
serious threat or grave danger
to society.
So a juvenile who would be
convicted of felony theft,
if the judge doesn't feel that
they don't pose a great threat
to society,
they wouldn't go in the SJOP
program.
So we're talking about very
serious offenders,
habitual offenders.
The people that have maybe gone
through the system a couple of
times before,
gone through some rehabilitative
programs and alternative
programs but those programs just
haven't worked.
>> You obviously think the
current law is too soft on
juvenile crime?
>> So you have to remember the
current juvenile code's about 40
years old.
And it's been updated once or
twice since then.
But I think one of the police
chiefs that we spoke with while
we spent the past two years
investigating this summed it up
best.
He said,
"Our juvenile code was written
for Wally and the Beaver,
but those aren't the kids we're
dealing with right now."
Our juveniles today are involved
in more violent crimes than we
thought they would be even 40
years ago.
That's why the list of felonies
that can land them in the SJOP
program right now is a very,
small limited group,
like first-degree homicide.
So we're expanding that only
just to fit the trend that we're
seeing much more violent crimes
that juveniles are taking part
of.
>> Are there specific kinds of
cases or is there specific
motivation for these bills?
>> So I think if you take a look
overall, just the seriousness or
the escalation and the violence
of the crimes
that are being committed.
You know,
40 years ago if a juvenile stole
a car,
most likely they took one out of
somebody's driveway who had left
the keys in the car or something
like that.
Today we see them taking
weapons.
I mean 13, 14,
15-year-old kids with guns
sticking them in the face of
mothers who in some instances
have children in the back seat
of their vehicles and they're
forcibly taking them from their
cars.
They're going in and robbing
stores with guns.
They're just involved in much
more violent crime than they
were in the past.
So what we're looking at --
quite frankly,
when you talk to everybody
involved in the criminal justice
system,
no matter what side of the
spectrum they're on,
everybody agrees with one thing,
that the juvenile code is
outdated and the entire code
needs to be updated.
That's a large undertaking.
This bill here deals with one
small segment of it.
>> Wisconsin's juvenile prisons
are under investigation into
alleged inmate abuse as you
know.
Does it concern you to
potentially have more inmates
with longer sentences at Lincoln
Hills and Copper Lake?
>> So nobody wants to see the
problems that are alleged to
have occurred at Lincoln Hills
continue into the past.
I think our new secretary,
Secretary Litscher,
has done a great job of making
some improvements.
We're going to be getting a
report back from the FBI that
tells us if more improvement is
needed and exactly what has to
be done and whatever has
happened there we have to fix.
But we have to remember,
of the thousands of juveniles
that go through the juvenile
justice system every year.
Last year we averaged 158
juveniles in this system.
So it's not a large number of
people.
Now,
that's not to minimize the
problems that may have
occurred there in the past.
But the people or the kids that
we're sending there are serious,
hard core criminals that the
age.
Whether they're 15 or 25,
they have committed some really
serious, heinous crimes.
Enough that a judge has
determined they pose a grave
threat to society,
which is what landed them in
there in the first place.
So we can't only focus on the
facility itself.
We have to recognize we have a
duty to protect innocent
citizens from becoming victims
of these violent offenders and
in many cases repeat violent
offenders.
>> All right.
We leave it there.
Representative Sanfellipo,
thanks very much.
>> Thank you.
I appreciate your time.
>> 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.