Pennsylvania judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan can hardly be described as honorable. Despicable is the word of choice. Last month the two pleaded guilty to federal fraud and conspiracy charges. But theirs is no ordinary crime.
Here's how the particularly disturbing scheme worked: Conahan ordered the closure of local state youth detainment center in 2002, citing poor facilities. He then secured contracts for private lockups owned by PA Child Care LLC. According to the evidence, these owners provided $2.6 million in kickbacks to both judges while Ciavarella unnecessarily sent teens to their facilities for petty offenses. One of these kids - 13-year-old first-time offender Shane Bly - was sent to a private prison for nearly a month for simply trespassing a vacant building.
More depressing than the egregious act itself is how avoidable this situation should have been. Even the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is at fault, as they disregarded an early complaint detecting the severity of Ciavarella's decisions. So while they sentenced more than twice the state average of teens to detention centers, Ciavarella and Conahan continued to profit illegally for four years. But regardless, these debacles could have been detected if an attorney had simply represented each of the 5,000 teenagers who appeared before Ciavarella.
Some may contend this is a non-issue. As Supreme Court buffs know, Gideon v. Wainwright established that the right to an attorney is constitutional, and in 1967 this right was extended to children. The problem is already solved, isn't it?
Unfortunately, no. Like the majority of states, Pennsylvania allows children with their parents to waive their right to counsel. Only Illinois, North Carolina and New Mexico obligate minors to retain representation when appearing in court. Without the requirement, many children decide to stand alone before their judge.
On the surface, this seems like a reasonable decision. Most of these teens had committed only minor infractions. Because the juvenile system is designed to be less punitive, it is sensible for the layperson to expect community service or a fine for this type of offense. At this point, a lawyer might seem more of a hassle than a help.
That is, until the judge decides to jail kids for cash. Without an attorney, juveniles and their families could only watch as Ciavarella ignored requests for leniency made by probation officers. Instead, teens left bound for a detention facility in handcuffs.
The case against the now-former jurists demonstrates that the juveniles without counsel were more likely to fall victim to overly harsh sentences. According to the Juvenile Law Center, over half of the unrepresented teenagers who appeared before Ciavarella were placed in a facility. Compare that to the mere 8.4 percent of juveniles statewide that were sentenced to detainment.
This possibility of corruption coupled with the vulnerability of juveniles makes an attorney a necessity. No child can be expected to understand the legal ramifications of his actions - both in and out of court. Families may suspect that three months in a juvenile detention center for mocking an assistant principal on MySpace is an abrasive sentence but without a lawyer they have no legal response. While Pennsylvania might not recognize this fact, both Ciavarella and Conahan did. And they exploited it to the fullest.
So, while the judges are serving their 87 months in federal prison, Pennsylvania and the 46 other states need to rectify this fiasco. Require the use of counsel in juvenile court. Critics may say that public defenders are already overworked, while frugal legislators may claim the economic climate would not permit these extra expenditures. This claim is ridiculous. If justice is not worth the money or the effort, nothing is.
Joe Wenner is a freshman in the School of International Service and a moderate columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
