However, a few of these “providers” are for-profit businesses, and therefore interested mainly in making money. This goal can be met only when they operate at or near capacity. Juvenile Law Center said there should be a law forbidding the use of for-profit, non-treatment detention centers such as PA Child Care. “It is axiomatic that for-profit programs are in the business of making money. While detention centers provide some short-term services to youth, their primary mission is control. At their core, detention centers ensure that a youth will show up at trial and not commit a crime prior to trial. For-profit detention centers make their profit based on a headcount. While public detention centers will stay in business even if their populations are low, for-profit detention centers cannot afford low populations.”
The commission cited the failure of Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board to investigate serious and detailed complaints against Conahan. It said the JCB lacked sufficient oversight, and its existing confidentiality provisions prevent any meaningful accountability. It noted that the board already has revised its internal operations, but said a study of its entire operating procedures was needed. The commission recommended that the Supreme Court review courthouse hiring practices and set guidelines because of the fact that Conahan and Ciavarella filled the Luzerne County Courthouse with their relatives and nurtured the overall corruption. “Court employees were less likely to speak out against judicial misconduct if they had personal ties to the judges engaging in misconduct.”
Juvenile Law Center noted that few parents of Ciavarella’s victims were aware of the board’s responsibility to move against rogue judges, and it said the Legislature should study ways to amend the state Constitution to increase the effectiveness of the board and to raise public awareness of it as an avenue of relief from wrongdoing by judges.
In Pennsylvania, district attorneys prosecuting juvenile cases have the obligation not only to protect the public and crime victims, but also to weigh the needs of the young offender, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. The commission said the prosecutors working in Luzerne County juvenile court had failed in this responsibility, and it recommended better training for young assistant district attorneys. But it added: “While training provides an appropriate foundation, there must be vigilance by all concerned regarding the importance of the mission of the juvenile justice system. All too often during the commission’s hearings, there were references to ‘kiddie court’ and the juvenile court in Luzerne County being considered a training ground for prosecutors and defenders. Officials at the state and county levels must emphasize the importance of balanced and restorative justice, and must see to it that the individuals who fill the roles in juvenile justice possess the integrity, the desire and the commitment to the goals and values of the system. Attitude reflects leadership, and the system will not function properly if it is simply a training ground, or an unwanted stepchild of the entire justice system.”
A basic question emerges from the Luzerne County tragedy that cannot be addressed by any law or regulation: Were it not for the millions of dollars in bribes, how much of a public outcry would there have been against the actions of these two judges? What voices would have been raised if the only wrongdoing was Ciavarella’s everyday denial of the basic rights of children? It is unsettling to speculate.
Before the whole world became aware of the kickbacks, it was clear to anyone involved, directly or indirectly, that Ciavarella was running a kangaroo court, something even Charles Dickens might have had difficulty imagining. Yet no one objected effectively. Lawyers, elected officials, police, school administrators, teachers, probation officers, prosecutors, and civil servants charged with protecting children all remained silent. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ignored Juvenile Law Center’s entreaties to step in until the bribery was revealed. The Luzerne County Bar Association has never commented, even to this day. The FBI and IRS originally were interested in Conahan’s organized crime associations.
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the Times-Leader published a series of articles in 2004 outlining in detail what was going on in juvenile court. It generated very little reader interest. The calamitous events in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, manifested a widespread public misunderstanding of the juvenile justice system, which is legally unique and not merely a version of adult court for children. Part of this popular confusion has to do with the stereotype of youthful offenders—hardened, old-before-their-time, violent “predators” that need to be removed from society. Only about 5 percent of all juvenile arrests are for violent crimes such as homicide and rape. Most of them are for property crimes, vandalism, and drug and alcohol abuse.
In its final report, the Interbranch Commission said, “it appears the public does not always understand how the juvenile justice system works and has conflicting ideas about what it is expected to accomplish.” It added:
Some erroneously believe the system should be punitive in nature and emphasize punishment; others believe the system should be protective and emphasize education and socialization. Understandably, these potentially conflicting approaches can lead the public, lawmakers, judges, and attorneys to a muddled conclusion about what exactly the juvenile system does and should do.
On the one hand, society expects juvenile courts to be places where children learn the consequences of engaging in unlawful conduct and to be places where punishment is a reality. As a result, an adjudication of delinquency can carry the possibility of very significant and lifelong effects, including out-of-home placement, disqualification from military service, Megan’s Law registration, and enhanced sentencing for adult crimes. Given these possible consequences, children must be afforded constitutionally required due process protections with all the formality and associated procedural rigidity they entail.
On the other hand, society thinks of juvenile courts as “problem-solving courts.” As problem-solving courts, they should have the flexibility and creativity needed to address the unique problems of childhood behavior and to be places of shelter and protection.
In Pennsylvania, as well as the rest of the nation, there are two parallel systems of justice—one for adults who commit crimes, the other for children who commit acts that would be crimes if they were adults. Indeed, the truism that children are different from adults takes on added power in the justice system. Adolescents, beset by impulsiveness, immaturity, hormonal tides, and vulnerability to peer pressure, are not as blameworthy as adults when they violate laws. When you ask young wrongdoers what they were thinking, one probable answer is that they weren’t.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation notes that there is an abundance of research proving that children are not merely smaller versions of adults: “New brain imaging research revealed that ‘the brain systems that govern impulse control, planning, and thinking ahead are still developing well beyond age 18.’ Behavioral studies confirmed that adolescents remain far less able to gauge risks and consequences, control impulses, handle stress, and resist peer pressure. Finally, research revealed that perhaps the most important difference between adolescent and adult lawbreakers is that most youthful offenders will cease lawbreaking as part of the normal maturation process.”
The issue of young people’s culpability has been studied by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, and it concludes that punishment or other legal sanctions for young defendants should not be based solely on the harm they have caused but also on blameworthiness:
Many studies have shown that by the age of sixteen, adolescents’ cognitive abilities—loosely, their intelligence or ability to reason—loosely mirrors that of adults. But how people reason is only one influence on how they make decisions. In the real world, especially in high-pressure crime situations, judgments are made in the heat of the moment, often in the company of peers. In these situations, adolescents’ other common traits—their short-sightedness, their impulsivity, their susceptibility to peer influence—can quickly undermine their decision-making c
apacity.
However, the maturing process follows a similar pattern across virtually all teenagers. Therefore it is both logical and efficient to treat adolescents as a special legal category—and to refer the vast majority of offenders under the age of 18 to juvenile court, where they will be treated as responsible but less blameworthy, and where they will receive less punishment and more rehabilitation and treatment than typical adult offenders. The juvenile system does not excuse youths of their crimes; rather, it acknowledges the development stage and its role in the crimes committed, and punishes appropriately.
Such distinction and nuance seem to be absent among large numbers of people, not just in northeastern Pennsylvania, but throughout the United States. We are a nation that sees imprisonment as the best means of controlling crime. And why should kids be any different? What candidate for judge, or any other political office, ever got votes by promising to work toward rehabilitating criminals? Retribution trumps rehabilitation every Election Day. Thus it is that America, with only 5 percent of the world’s population, is home to 25 percent of its prisoners.
This pervasive belief that more people need to be locked up was the rich breeding ground for the Luzerne County disaster. Like the coal mine operators a century earlier, Ciavarella (and, less directly, his co-conspirator Conahan) preyed on people too weak to fight back. They were easy targets. No sons or daughters of wealthy businessmen or professionals were hauled off in shackles. Many of the victims came from disrupted, impoverished households. Ciavarella ordered his probation officers to lull them into a false sense of security, and then he suckerpunched them when they got to his courtroom. Children and parents left separately and bewildered. There was no justice, and this is the real crime. That the judges took money to further these ends only made it a worse crime.
Like all true stories, this one has no end.
INDEX
Adelphoi Village, 81
adult courts:
and appeals process, 81–82
juvenile clients in, 76
juvenile courts vs., 78
Advancement Project, 79
Alaska, 253
alternatives to jail time, 142
Ciavarella’s attitude toward, 31
and costs of incarceration, 60
Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, 59, 254
American Bar Association, 41, 93
Annie E. Casey Foundation, 59, 254, 258
anthracite coal industry, 17–20
anti-shackling rule, 250–51
appeals, 81, 252–53
attorneys:
acquiescence to Ciavarella’s stance by, 36
campaign contributions from, 30, 32, 69
clients solicited by, 180–81
in conspiracy of silence, 89–91
informing defendants of right to counsel. see right to counsel
judges’ power over, 36
obligations in juvenile cases, 255–56
waiver of right to counsel, 91–93
when appearing before Ciavarella, 63–64
zero tolerance policy support from, 96
The Australian, 15
Avila, Jim, 178
Baer, Max, 247
Baker, Lisa, 232–33, 248–51
“balanced and restorative justice,” 41, 56–57
Baldino, Thomas, 21–22, 96, 99
Barbara, Joseph, 19
Belletiere, Ronald, 34, 35
Berntson, Brian, 199
“boot camp” for adolescents, 12, 70, 103
Brisbin, Condy, 17
Brooks, Anthony T. P., 103
Brulo, Sandra, 50, 90, 94, 200, 238–39
Bufalino, Russell, 19, 68
California, 251
Callen, Nicholas, 117
Camp Adams, 60–61, 78, 87, 106, 171
Caputo, A. Richard, 181
Carlson, Martin C., 167–68
Carrelli, Gina, 201
Castille, Ronald D., 172
child labor laws, 38
children:
and “anti-kid” current in Luzerne County, 103
effects of incarceration on, 57–59
legal rights of, 141–42, 256–57
legal treatment of adults vs., 37–39, 55–56, 258–59
reform movement to protect, 38. see also reform of juvenile justice
“super predator” view of, 40–41
Chomsky, Judith, 141
Ciavarella, Cindy, 62, 63, 115, 127
and tax reporting, 199
at the trial, 186, 187, 201, 212, 219
Ciavarella, Marco, 126, 200–201
Ciavarella, Mark A., Jr. (Scooch), 27, 260
admission of corruption by, 178–79
atmosphere in courtroom of, 64–65, 232
background of, 28–30
and balanced and restorative justice, 41
and cases with politically-connected adults, 67–69
class-action suits against, 181
Conahan’s friendship with, 35
conspiracy of silence surrounding, 87–96
debts of, 62, 164
and defendants’ rights to a lawyer, 37, 151–55
demand for payment by, 62–63
demeanor of, 63, 76–77, 122
enjoyment of new wealth by, 62
evidence for motives of, 57
expansion of zero tolerance by, 49
filling of PA Child Care by, 51–55
finder’s fee for. see finder’s fees
fines assessed by, 53–54
Gold’s meeting with, 131–32
harsh consequences approved by, 74, 80
increased placements by, 106
indictment of, 180
investigation of, 157–58, 160–62, 166–70, 173–76, 178–81
JCB complaint about, 112–15
judicial approach of, 78–79
judicial campaign of, 31–32
Juvenile Law Center investigation of, 151–56
kickbacks to. see kickbacks
lack of opposition to, 13
and laundering of finder’s fee, 60
on Lisa’s placement, 73–75
and Luzerne County corruption, 101–3
McCarron’s questioning of, 122–25
Mericle’s campaign contributions to, 44
and Mericle’s office building dispute, 66
misuse of powers by, 56
Muroski’s suspicions of, 111
and PA Child Care project, 45–48
parents’ admiration of, 98–99
parents bringing their children before, 99–100
and Penn State football team, 5, 76
plea bargain of, 164, 167–68, 170, 179–80
and power of lawyers, 36
public respect/support for, 126, 127
reaction to court decision, 178
and recidivism, 107
reign of terror of, 50
relationship of school officials and, 96–99
and replacement of River Street Center, 42
resignation of, 156
school administrators’ praise of, 14, 36
school appearances by, 41–42
sentences in adult courts vs. sentences of, 76
sentencing of, 218–24
shackles ordered by, 104
as threat used by parents and teachers, 103
Times-Leader series on, 74–75
tough-on-crime stance of, 31–32, 35–36
and Hillary Transue case, 135–38, 143–45
trial of, 183–225
and Jessica Van Reeth case, 146–51
wealth of, 110
young offenders’ appearances before, 2, 4–7, 9, 11, 12, 58–61, 71, 118–22, 135–38, 171, 173–74
and zero tolerance policy, 40
Ciavarella, Mark A., Sr., 28, 29
Ciavarella, Mary, 28, 29, 157
Circles on the Square, 213
Citizens’ Voice, 114, 155, 163–64, 178, 179, 197
Clark, Bill, 211
Clayton County, Georgia, 254
Cleland, John M., 231–32, 235–36, 244, 247
coal barons, 18–20
coal industry, 17–20
colloquy, 92, 144, 148, 175, 241
Columbine High School, 40
Conahan, Barbara, 35, 62, 63, 115, 225
Conahan, Elizabeth, 33
Conahan, Joseph, 33
Conahan, Michael T. (the Boss), 28
background of, 32–34
Ciavarella’s friendship with, 35
and Ciavarella’s trial, 187, 188, 191, 193–94, 197, 209–10, 217
class-action suits against, 181
D’Elia’s relationship with, 158–59
demand for payment by, 62
domination of courthouse staff by, 101
enjoyment of new wealth by, 61
fear of, 108, 109
finder’s fee for. see finder’s fees
indictment of, 180
investigation of, 159–62, 166–67, 169–70
JCB complaint about, 112–14
kickbacks to. see kickbacks
and Lokuta’s removal from bench, 114
Muroski reassigned by, 108
and Muroski’s letter to commissioners, 107
Muroski’s suspicions of, 111
organized crime ties of, 34–35, 68–69
and PA Child Care audit, 85, 127–28
and PA Child Care project, 45–48
and Pagnotti case, 67–69
and Placement Guarantee Agreement, 47
plea bargain of, 164, 167–68, 170, 179–80
and ramping-up for PA Child Care, 50
reign of terror of, 50
and replacement of River Street Center, 42
sentencing of, 225–30
wealth of, 110
Consiglio, Michael, 186, 201
conspiracy(-ies) of silence, 87–99
Kids for Cash Page 25
