Presumption of Guilt analyses criminal prosecutions that spawned the notorious “kids for cash” scandal. Although a juvenile judge freely admitted committing fraud in failing to properly account for millions of dollars, prosecutors insisted he had accepted that money in exchange for jailing juveniles. These heinous allegations were presumed to be true, resulting in widespread hysteria. Incredibly, after creating the scandal, prosecutors failed to produce evidence it had ever happened at the judge’s trial. Unfortunately for the judge, by that time “kids for cash” was so ingrained in the public’s conscience that the lack of its proof was meaningless.
Presumption of Guilt analyses the genesis and aftermath of the notorious "kids for cash" scandal. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. was an unethical juvenile court county judge who was willing to plead guilty to federal crimes as a result of his failure to properly account for millions of dollars he and his colleague received. However, he vehemently denied government allegations that he accepted that money as a quid pro quo for jailing juvenile delinquents. Nonetheless, media dubbed Ciavarella the "kids for cash judge" and relentlessly covered the ensuing scandal. Pennsylvania officials presumed his guilt and enacted a commission to investigate how to remove the scandal's taint from the Commonwealth's juvenile court system. Crimes committed by juvenile delinquents during the period the scandal supposedly occurred were summarily erased, regardless of the severity of those crimes, leaving thousands of innocent victims devoid of justice. Yet, prosecutors never proved the scandal ever happened. Although the lead prosecutor continued to give it lip service, no evidence was provided. Instead, prosecutors quietly removed the very allegations that had spawned "kids for cash" from the Superseding Indictment at the end of Ciavarella's trial. Ignoring the utter lack of proof of the scandal's existence, media falsely reported that Ciavarella was convicted for his participation in a scheme to jail juveniles for profit. Afterwards prosecutors continued to insist that the scandal was real, referring to those redacted allegations as if they were proven facts. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit adopted those same unproven, redacted allegations as part of its precedential opinion on the matter. This book demonstrates that fake news is real and the Presumption of Innocence is in jeopardy, especially when heinous allegations are presented. It is a reminder to make the government prove its case before accepting what it alleges. That is something neither the media nor public officials did for Ciavarella.
When thirteen-year-old Matthew appeared in front of Judge Mark Ciavarella for throwing a piece of steak at his mother's boyfriend, he was sentenced to seven weeks at PA Child Care, a private, for-profit juvenile detention center in northeastern Pennsylvania. Angelia was fourteen when she and a friend scrawled "Vote for Michael Jackson" on five stop signs. Charged with vandalism and defacing public property, Angelia was sent by Ciavarella to PA Child Care without her epilepsy medication and suffered a grand mal seizure her second night. Fifteen-year-old Charlie, arrested for unknowingly purchasing a stolen motorbike, was convicted of a felony and sent to PA Child Care for six weeks. Matthew, Angelia, and Charlie are just three children among the thousands who appeared in Ciavarella's courtroom between 2003 and 2008 and were sent away--often with no attorney present and after only cursory hearings--to a detention facility in which, it later came to light, Ciavarella had a personal financial stake. As Kids for Cash reveals, this miscarriage of justice underscores a multitude of problems with our juvenile justice system, which too often criminalizes standard adolescent behavior, treats adolescents more harshly than if they were adults, and denies them their most fundamental constitutional rights. William Ecenbarger, a Pulitzer Prize and George Polk Award-winning investigative journalist who covered the case for the Philadelphia Inquirer, now gives us the first book-length account of this shocking story. In the tradition of true-crime legal thrillers from The Executioner's Song to A Civil Action, Ecenbarger exposes a deeply corrupt and broken system that ruined the lives of many children and ultimately led to the judge's conviction on charges of racketeering, fraud, tax violations, money laundering, extortion, and bribery. Fastidiously researched and utterly propulsive, Kids for Cash takes us deep inside a profoundly flawed legal system, revealing the twisted and haunting realities of America's juvenile justice system.
Here is the explosive story of the Kids for Cash scandal in Pennsylvania, a judicial justice miscarriage that sent more than 2,500 children and teens to a for-profit detention center while two judges lined their pockets with cash, as told by Candy J. Cooper, an award-winning journalist and Pulitzer Prize finalist. In the early 2000s, Judge Mark Ciavarella and Judge Michael Conahan of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania were known as no-nonsense judges. Juveniles who showed up in their courtrooms faced harsh words and even harsher sentencing. In the post-Columbine era, many people believed that was just what the county needed to ensure its children and teens stayed on the straight and narrow path. But as more and more children faced shocking sentences for seemingly benign crimes, and a newly built for-profit detention center filled up further and further, a sinister pattern of abuses and bribery emerged. Through extensive research and original reporting leading into contemporary times, award-winning journalist Candy J. Cooper tells the story of a scandal that the Juvenile Law Center calls “one of the largest and most serious violations of children’s rights in the history of the American legal system.”
Reprint of the fourth edition, which contains an additional text attributed to Voltaire. Originally published anonymously in 1764, Dei Delitti e Delle Pene was the first systematic study of the principles of crime and punishment. Infused with the spirit of the Enlightenment, its advocacy of crime prevention and the abolition of torture and capital punishment marked a significant advance in criminological thought, which had changed little since the Middle Ages. It had a profound influence on the development of criminal law in Europe and the United States.
An exquisite examination of a sexual culture in crisis What if we took sex out of the box marked “special,” either the worst or best thing that a human person can experience, and considered it within the complexity of reality? In this extraordinary book, despite longstanding tabloid-style sexual preoccupations with monsters and victims, shame and virtue, JoAnn Wypijewski does exactly that. From the HIV crisis to the paedophile priest panic, Woody Allen to Brett Kavanaugh, child pornography to Abu Ghraib, Wypijewski takes the most famous sex panics of the last decades and turns them inside out, weaving what together becomes a searing indictment of modern sexual politics, exposing the myriad ways sex panics and the expansion of the punitive state are intertwined. What emerges is an examination of the multiple ways in which the ever-expanding default language of monsters and victims has contributed to the repressive power of the state. Politics exists in the mess of life. Sex does too, Wypijewski insists, and so must sexual politics, to make any sense at all.
Unquestionably the most radical treatise ever written on the American jury, examining Magna Carta and a host of other historical sources to sustain the claim that jurors should be chosen from the entire population and be judges of both fact and law . One of the earliest treatises on the subject. Spooner's powerful argument for reform of the jury system holds that jurors should be drawn by lot from the whole body of citizens, and that they should be judges of law as well as of the fact in question. Spooner [1808-1887] was well known for his controversial arguments on political and legal subjects. Spooner maintained that jurors should be drawn by lot from the whole body of citizens, and that they should be judges of law as well as of fact. Contents: The Right of Juries to Judge of the Justice of Laws The Trial by Jury, As Defined by Magna Carta 1. The History of Magna Carta. 2. The Language of Magna Carta Additional Proofs of the Rights and Duties of Juries 1. Weakness of the Regal Authority 2. The Ancient Common Law Juries Were Mere Courts of Conscience 3. The Oaths of Juror. 4. The Right of Jurors to Fix the Sentence 5. The Oaths of Judges 6. The Coronation Oath The Rights and Duties of Juries in Civil Suits Objections Answered Juries of the Present Day Illegal Illegal Judges The Free Administration of Justice The Criminal Intent Moral Considerations for Jurors Authority of Magna Carta Limitations Imposed Upon the Majority by the Trial by Jury Appendix Taxation
Braithwaite's argument against punitive justice systems and for restorative justice systems establishes that there are good theoretical and empirical grounds for anticipating that well designed restorative justice processes will restore victims, offenders, and communities better than existing criminal justice practices. Counterintuitively, he also shows that a restorative justice system may deter, incapacitate, and rehabilitate more effectively than a punitive system. This is particularly true when the restorative justice system is embedded in a responsive regulatory framework that opts for deterrence only after restoration repeatedly fails, and incapacitation only after escalated deterrence fails. Braithwaite's empirical research demonstrates that active deterrence under the dynamic regulatory pyramid that is a hallmark of the restorative justice system he supports, is far more effective than the passive deterrence that is notable in the stricter "sentencing grid" of current criminal justice systems.
