Review: Exposing a Broken Juvenile Court System

Kids were jailed for minor offenses, as detailed in The Kids of Rutherford County podcast.

In Rutherford County, Tennessee, kids as young as 7 years old were getting thrown in jail for incredibly minor offenses—stealing a football or pulling someone's hair. Some kids were even jailed for acts that weren't crimes at all, such as failing to stop an after-school fight. Worse still, the kids were frequently put in solitary confinement, even though that's explicitly prohibited for children under Tennessee law.

Not only were these jailings illegal, but pretty much everyone working in the Rutherford County Juvenile Court knew it—including the county's sole juvenile court judge, Donna Scott Davenport.

In The Kids of Rutherford County, a four-part podcast series from Serial Productions and The New York Times, Meribah Knight examines how so many kids could be unlawfully detained and why it took so long to stop the practice.

The podcast follows two public defenders, Wes Clark and Mark Downton, who eventually launched a successful lawsuit against the county after years of maddening attempts to convince Davenport that her practices were illegal.

Thanks to Clark and Downton's suit, Rutherford County is no longer illegally detaining its children on minor offenses and Davenport is no longer on the bench. But the pair didn't end up with an unalloyed victory. The $11 million payout that Clark and Downton won in court? Only 23 percent of the eligible recipients could be contacted to make claims, so just $2.2 million was distributed to the jailed kids.

The Kids of Rutherford County showcases just how difficult it is to force broken government systems to change, and how difficult it is to make the victims of injustice whole.

Comments

[Adans smith]

When I was a kid your dad just beat your ass.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

Dad being the operative word there

[Vernon Depner]

And your Dad was male.

[Ersatz]

with testicles and a non medi-fabricated schlong

[mad.casual]

Dad? Any respectable older or peer male. Kinda the point, kind of an unwritten rule in football that if you steal the ball illegally, or do something untoward, you should expect to have your behavior politely corrected.

[rbike]

But I may not want my football stolen. I might really like it. The football might actually have high sentimental and intrinsic value and damages me greatly by losing it. Then what?

Ok, not jail but severe warnings and juice jail if repeated.

[MasterThief]

Gotta wonder how much of these are "scared straight" tactics. I also wonder if these are first offenses and if the details of each example make them more egregious.
It's a bad look and they should probably reform these procedures, but I don't trust Reason or Emma to accurately relay information. Activists aren't known for their honesty and even when Reason is doing libertarian activism they still need to engage the subject honestly

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

Reason used to be really good about giving the whole story, even if it goes against the point they were trying to make. That ended under welch.

[JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy]

maybe you should listen to the podcast...that wasn't produced by reason.

[mad.casual]

Gotta wonder how much of these are “scared straight” tactics.
...
Activists aren’t known for their honesty and even when Reason is doing libertarian activism they still need to engage the subject honestly

This is the core of the ideology. It's the "real communism has never been tried" of the criminal justice system that SJW libertarians/bleeding heart liberals keep peddling. Robbie went through this stumbling over his own "civil libertarian" dick with Title IX and now Emma's stumbling through it with executions and the juvenile court system.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Emma and people like her didn't want kids tried as adults or people they like exposed to the same legal liability for the same crime because it gives them a sad. So, we redefine justice for all crimes and set up a multi-tier courts system so that the laws can be interpreted selectively at all levels. One law for one act is too medieval for Emma's modern, wise, and enlightened sensibilities.

[Quicktown Brix]

The $11 million payout that Clark and Downton won in court? Only 23 percent of the eligible recipients could be contacted to make claims, so just $2.2 million was distributed to the jailed kids.

This seemed odd to me. This article helps explain more: there are ~29,000 victims so less than $500 each.

https://www.dnj.com/story/news/2018/02/08/14-3-million-settlement-available-29-k-probation-victims-can-file-claims-14-3-m-settlement-rutherfor/317152002/

[mad.casual]

In Rutherford County, Tennessee, kids as young as 7 years old were getting thrown in jail for incredibly minor offenses—stealing a football or pulling someone's hair. Some kids were even jailed for acts that weren't crimes at all, such as failing to stop an after-school fight. Worse still, the kids were frequently put in solitary confinement, even though that's explicitly prohibited for children under Tennessee law.

But, but... were they tried as adults under the age of 14 or even 10 for stabbing their Nanny to death for a car or shooting their own mother in the head? Because when a 10 yr. old who killed his own mother over an Amazon order gets tried as an adult, *that's* when you really know the police state is eroding social order and the darkness of tyranny is closing in.

[Vernon Depner]

Trying a 10-year-old as an adult is asinine.

[mad.casual]

Thinking your feelings trump the facts and reality that you and your peers refuse to acknowledge as you’re complaining about it is asinine.

Otherwise, trying a 10 yr. old cold-blooded killer as an adult is just one of many ways to swiftly and impartially ensure he doesn’t kill anyone again.

[SRG2]

Yup. I guess they're still in thrall to 18thC ideas.

[mad.casual]

Well, the 20thC ideas imprisoned and killed more people by about an order of magnitude *and* created the very system about which you, Emma, and Vernon are complaining.

But don't worry, I'm sure you guys skull fucking each other retarded over who loves 10 yr. old killers the most is really going to win the day.

[SRG2]

A 10yo does not have the brain and moral capacity of an adult. It would appear from your posts that neither do you.

[mad.casual]

OK, so you don’t actually care about the law or society or the actual killing or the actual imprisoning of more people.

It’s all about striving to convey or prove to others that you’re just as, if not more, intelligent and virtuous than a 10 yr. old.

I mean, I kinda laid that out originally with Emma, but I guess it’s good that you demonstrate in front of everyone that Emma’s not the only one, I guess.

[SRG2]

No, it's pointing out that you lack the intelligence and morality of an adult.

You seem quite content to try a 10yo kid as an adult if he kills someone.

[mad.casual]

No, it’s pointing out that you lack the intelligence and morality of an adult.

You didn’t point it out, you asserted it and did so without proof or as self-evident via your claim.

You don’t care if more 10 yr. olds end up in prison or juvenile hall via the juvenile justice system, you don’t care if more people get killed because of unnecessarily or unjustified lenient sentencing, you only care about trying to make yourself look better than the intellect and morality you would perceive a 10 yr. old to have.

Again, my 10 yr. old would see through this, so I’m confused (not really) as to whom you think you’re fooling.

You seem quite content to try a 10yo kid as an adult if he kills someone.

Yes, I am. I could explain how “tried as an adult” doesn’t mean he goes without trial or guarantees any specific outcome any different than “tried as a juvenile” but, again, you don’t care. You’ve made it plainly obvious that if the state threw 100 10 yr. olds in prison through the juvenile system and remanded 1 to the juvenile system through the adult courts, you’d still strive to convey yourself as morally and intellectually superior to a 10 yr. old.

[Brandybuck]

In my home county the sheriff used the juvenile detention inmates as his slave labor to work on his "secret" pot farm. He was of the Joe Arpaio school of sheriffing: "I'm am the highest law in the land so I can do what I want".

[SRG2]

FWIW I believe that some of the sovcit nutters actually do hold that the sheriff is the highest legal authority.

Trivia note: "County sheriff" is tautologous from an etymological standpoint, as "sheriff" is derived from "shire reeve".

[mad.casual]

Trivia note: SRG2 is a fucking retard.

A shire reeve derived their authority from the Crown. A County Sheriff derives their authority from the County, as opposed to the local PD, State, or the Federal Executive, and would still connote the distinction from their own Deputy Sheriffs.

I mean, even if you hated cops and wanted to see the entire criminal justice system dissolved down to the tip of its roots, this basic level of understanding, rather than publicly announcing your retardation, would only serve to benefit your aims.

[SRG2]

Oh fuck off, peasant.

1. "County" and "Shire" are synonyms.

2. That moron sovcits have bizarre ideas based on misunderstandings is hardly news. The sheriff instance is but one example..

[mad.casual]

1. “County” and “Shire” are synonyms.

Do you fondle and suck on Great Tits and shoe away great tits when you're afraid they'll shit on your shoulder? Walk into a restaurant, order grits and get similarly retarded when they don't bring you a bowl full of sand? Let your catfish go do its business outside while you eat your cat? Refer to the dildo you shove up your butt as "the butter"?

I don't understand why, after demonstrating your retardation, you would refuse to understand and double down?

Shire reeves derive their authority over the shire from The Crown. Nowhere in the history of The Kingdom are they called County Sheriffs. The term doesn't originate until you get to The States and, having someone who upholds the law over a shire, or county, derives their authority from the shire, or county and is, thus, a County(-appointed) Shire Reeve.

Thus, sovereign citizens would disregard Federal officers who are appointed by and derive their authority from the executive the way Shire Reeves derive their authority from the crown, as illegitimate relative to County Sheriffs whose authority they granted/voted for directly.

Are you trying to convince people to regard you as a moronic tar baby and mute you?

[mad.casual]

Again, you may still consider County Sheriffs as abusive of their authority or the county as an inept construct, but that ignores the distinctions between monarchs and democracies and doesn’t change the fact that County Shire Reeve isn’t redundant any more than saying Toyota both owns and build the car that Bubba Wallace races. It may seem awkward to say Bubba Wallace will be racing Toyota’s black, red, and white NASCAR Toyota but not every owner or team builds their own cars or engines, so it adds clarity and is not redundant. Unless you insist on being redundantly retarded.

[SRG2]

https://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SovereignCitizens.pdf
Some sovereign citizens believe federal and state officials have no real authority and will only recognize the local sheriff’s department as the only legitimate government official.

[mad.casual]

Illinois Gov. Pritzker FURIOUS as Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Gun Law

Again, they don't derive their authority from the Governor or the Executive or Monarch above them. They derive their authority from the mandate of the County that elected them. Again this isn't that hard and you're openly and publicly choosing to be stupid.