Victims’ families are often extremely reluctant to appear in the media. It can be horribly retraumatizing. Many of us feel we have no choice – that without our voices, the media coverage will be incomplete, imbalanced, or even inaccurate. So we often choose to speak.

While we cannot possibly keep a comprehensive list of media reports that include reference to NOVJM on this website (or NOVJL, our original name), here are some samples of our appearance in the news media:

National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers

Compassion in juvenile sentencing, 2008

Several weeks ago, I spoke with Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins of Illinois.victims.org after she commented on a post I’d done that she felt had portrayed murder victims’ families as vengeful.

That hadn’t been my intent, but after speaking with Jennifer, I realized that my reference to victims’ families in the post had been insensitive.

My stated purpose for the creation of this blog is to create a dialogue, but doing so has proven easier said than done.

I realized that with very few exceptions, there was no conduit for meaningful dialogue between the advocates for eliminating the sentence of Juvenile Life without the Possibility of Parole and the living victims of those inmates serving LWOP for crimes committed as juveniles.

The Pendulum Foundation is an advocacy organization for juveniles convicted as adults. The mission statement on Pendulum’s website is this:

“Children are our most precious natural resource.

The Pendulum Foundation believes in second chances. As a juvenile justice non-profit organization, we are committed to educating the public about the issues surrounding children convicted and sentenced as adults. We are also committed to taking groundbreaking programs and projects into the prisons that will help our incarcerated youth survive and thrive, as well as transform the lives of young prisoners re-entering society and at-risk youth. Our goal is to ensure – whether inside or outside of prison — happy, healthy, well-adjusted and productive adults.”

There is no advocacy organization for the families of murder victims in Colorado. I thought about this and realized how tragic that really is. I thought about what it might feel like to have lost a loved one to a brutal crime and I imagined how hurt and angry I would feel to see blog posts and news articles in support of the offenders, with no thought to the victims’ perspective. Jennifer helped me to understand how truly traumatizing it is for the living survivors. She helped me to understand that the extreme cases of victims’ families who appear to be vengeful tell only a tiny part of the story. What we don’t see is the long term impact that survivors of these terrible tragedies live with. She helped me to understand that in addition to their grief, victims’ families often deal with divorce, depression, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder and that the prospect of having to testify at parole hearings on a recurring basis, therefore reopening the trauma of the crimes is something that has to be considered when debating changes to LWOP sentences.

Historically, there has been no constructive dialogue between “pro-offender” and “pro-victim” advocacy groups and in order to consider changes to sentencing law, this dialogue has to occur.

I just discovered that there is now a new site called The National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers.

This is an excerpt from the web site, explaining why the site was created:

“The national effort is now well underway by advocates for juvenile offenders to eliminate, or certainly to moderate, the juvenile life without parole sentence for the over 2000 convicted murderers in the United States that were under the age of 18 at the time of their offenses.

While we can understand their well-meaning motives, murder victims’ family members of those cases have, for the most part, been left out of that discussion.

This is not acceptable – to leave the victims of these crimes out of the conversation about what to do with their loved ones’ killers – and will not lead to the broad social change the advocates for the juvenile lifers would hope for, in any case. Unless principles of victims’ rights and human rights and restorative justice are applied to the victims’ families, the social discourse on this sentence for younger killers will degenerate, as it already has in several states, to polarized adversarial battling, resulting in no reforms accomplished and no victims being supported.

Even though there has been a well-funded, fully staffed, orchestrated multi-organizational movement calling for an end to the Juvenile LWOP sentence operating nationally for years, only one state has passed any legislation reforming Juvenile Life without Parole sentences – Colorado.

And Colorado had to pass its law in a painfully adversarial battle with the victims’ families (that knew about the legislative effort to lessen the sentences of their loved ones’ killers). This opposition, we know, saddened and frustrated the conscientious advocates for the juvenile offenders. They have written to us and stated how much they wish that there could have been a respectful and responsible dialogue between them. Instead it was agonizing for all sides.”

I’m encouraged that this new site has been established and is reaching out to contact victims’ families and to offer them voice in this discussion. It’s only when we, as a society are able to examine the complex issue of juvenile life sentences together that we be able to find solutions and alternatives that consider the rights and the humanity of everyone.

Juvenile Life Without Parole

PBS, 2009

O’BRIEN: In Pennsylvania, a Senate committee held hearings last October to consider doing away with life sentences for juvenile offenders. Lawmakers got an earful from opponents like Dawn Romig, whose 12-year-old daughter had been murdered by 17-year-old Brian Bahr.

Ms. ROMIG (testifying): We learned that Brian had made a list. It was called 23 things to do to a girl in the woods: “Beat her, check; rape her, check; kill her, check.” Everything on that list was carried out. It was an adult act he planned and executed. Why should these juveniles not get life in prison? Age cannot excuse what they have done.

JODI DOTTS (testifying): I never got to say goodbye to Kimmie. I never got to see her in a casket. I now talk to her at her grave still, 10 years later, on Mother’s Day. I’d also like to add, as I was sitting here listening to people saying they need second chances, my daughter didn’t have a second chance. She wasn’t given that choice whether to live or to die and I’m here to fight to make sure that these juveniles do not get released. Thank you.

Teens locked up for life without a second chance

CNN, 2009

Proponents of the strict sentencing laws said public safety should be top priority. They argued that judges give certain criminals, regardless of their age, life sentences because the crimes are so abhorrent.

“There are some people who are so fundamentally dangerous that they can’t walk among us,” said Jennifer Jenkins, who co-founded the National Organization for Victims of Juvenile Lifers. The Illinois-based group has fought legislation in nine states that would remove sentences of life without parole.

Jenkins has experienced the devastation of losing family members to a teen killer. In 1990, her sister and her sister’s family, who were living in a wealthy suburb in Chicago, Illinois, were murdered by a teenager.

“Victims have the right not to be constantly revictimized,” she said.

Two cases may change the way teens are punished

CNN, 2009

Allentown, Pennsylvania (CNN) — Sixty miles and the twin tragedies of young lives lost to violence link this industrial hub to the tough streets of North Philadelphia.

Here, a grieving mother uses the memory of her murdered daughter to fight on behalf of victim rights. In his West Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia, a paroled teenage killer uses his second chance to mentor at-risk youth. In these separate cases, both the criminals and their victims were juveniles.

Their stories provide the backdrop for an unrelated pair of upcoming Supreme Court appeals over whether juvenile offenders who commit violent felonies deserve tough prison sentences — especially life without parole.

On Monday the justices will examine whether the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” should be applied in such cases, and whether young minds, because of their age, have less culpability and greater potential to be reformed.

“These two cases are going to tell us a lot about how far the Supreme Court — led by Justice [Anthony] Kennedy — is willing to go in limiting a state’s ability to impose incredibly tough sentences on either the young, or in some cases, the mentally retarded,” said Thomas Goldstein, co-founder of Scotusblog and a leading Washington attorney. “How much is the Supreme Court willing to intervene here?”

Child was abducted, strangled

On a quiet street in Allentown, Dawn Romig can look out from her porch and see the city park a block away where in 2003 her world fell apart. There on a snowy late February afternoon, her 12-year-old child, Danni, was abducted by a 17-year-old neighbor. The girl was beaten, raped and strangled.

Romig and her husband, Daryl, were in the courtroom when suspect Brian Bahr was brought in for a first appearance. “I leaned over to my husband and I said, ‘Oh my goodness, I know who that is,’ ” she recalled. “I said, ‘I’ve yelled at him. He was a troublemaker in the neighborhood before.’ “

Bahr was tried as an adult, convicted, and given life without parole. Pennsylvania leads the United States in teen lifers with more than 440, according to state lawmakers supporting laws to end such sentences.

Anyone in the state charged with homicide has to be tried as an adult and, if convicted, sentenced to life behind bars.

“He was very close to 18, he was very angry, he knew what he was doing, he knew right from wrong,” Dawn Romig said of her daughter’s killer. “He had a written plan on paper that they found in his school bag, 23 things to do to a girl in the woods. And he did it all.”

She thinks Bahr deserves to die in prison for his crime. “This was so violent and so premeditated. Other situations deserve a second chance but something as violent as this was — it was so angry and so violent and so cold.”

Hard-learned lesson

Dawn Romig has testified before the state legislature, trying to block efforts to end life sentences for underage felons. In her tidy brick home, she shares remembrances of her daughter, including a quilt made of Danni’s clothing.

“We have moved on, we’ve healed as much as I think we are going to heal, but we got to keep her memory alive,” Romig said. “She is still our child. Just because she is gone doesn’t mean that my kids don’t have a sister, that we don’t have a daughter. She’s still our child.”

She and her husband take a visitor to Danni’s grave site. They gently clean the marker and remove leaves, revealing the image of Tweety Bird, their daughter’s favorite character.

Romig plans to be at the Supreme Court for the two unrelated cases.

“I guess the only thing that came out of this horrible death of Danni is a lesson — a lesson that my children will have to learn the hard way. My son will respect girls and cherish them, never hurt them and never force them to do something they don’t want to do. And I need to try to teach my daughter some warning signs to look for so she can stay away from people” like Danni’s killer.

Edwin Desamour offers no excuses, but an explanation for why life on the streets turned him into a teenage killer and convict. In his role as mentor, he sees a measure of deja vu in his young charges.

“A lot of times I sit back and look at a lot of these kids out here and can’t believe that was me,” he said. “I can’t believe that was me walking down the street thinking, acting and talking like that. Wow. I can’t believe those stupid things.”

Desamour advocates for a fresh look at how police officers and courts deal with young offenders.

“Kids can turn their lives around. I turned my life around,” he said. “What’s at stake here are kids’ lives. We’re losing two lives. When a violent crime occurs, especially if it’s murder, not only does one person die, the other kid dies also. Prison is the cemetery of the living when a kid enters the system where it seems like there is no return once you get up in there.”

Mlive, 2011

After decades in prison, they may eventually come to terms with their crimes.

They may come to regret their actions or understand them or get past them.

But their victims won’t.

And to many loved ones of homicide victims killed during crimes by juveniles, keeping them in prison until the day they die is the only option.

“There are people on this planet who are utterly and deeply dangerous and dysfunctional, and we can’t fix everybody, and there are some people who we have to keep separated from the rest of us,” said Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, president of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers.

In Michigan, 358 prisoners are serving mandatory life sentences for crimes committed from ages 14 to 17, second in the nation.

The American Civil Liberties Union is fighting to give them a second chance, through a federal lawsuit in Detroit. The U.S. Supreme Court this week also said it would take up the issue.

Jody Robinson is fighting back.

“They claim these children deserve a second chance and I always say to that, ‘Well, where’s my brother’s second chance?’” said Robinson, of Oakland County, who is treasurer of the national group.

“He doesn’t get a second chance to have a family, have children, start his own business like he dreamed of. He doesn’t get a second chance.”

Her brother, James Cotaling, a 28-year-old auto mechanic, was killed inside a Pontiac house in 1990.

He suffered 25 knife wounds and was nearly decapitated.

Barbara Hernandez, then 16, and her 20-year-old boyfriend, James Roy Hyde, were convicted of luring Cotaling into the house, killing him and stealing his car.

“We were given a life without parole sentence. We were promised we would never have to deal with this again, and unfortunately that’s not the case,” Robinson said.

Hernandez was denied clemency by Gov. Jennifer Granholm in 2010. Still, the issue resurfaces regularly in legislative bills, so far unsuccessfully.

“After 10 years, I got to a place where I could accept it and I could remember my brother’s smile,” Robinson said. “I remembered the fun times we had and I didn’t think so much of how he died or the brutality of it.”

Robinson said she gained a measure of peace until the legislation surfaced for the first time. She testified against the bill in Lansing, and she said that summoned up all the horror she lived through after Cotaling’s death.

“I’ve had to do that every year since and it has brought back nightmares,” said Robinson, who is 39 and lives in Davisburg.

“The first year I had night terrors. My children didn’t understand why I had to sleep with the light on.”

Would it be a punishing change?

The ACLU’s pending federal lawsuit argues life sentences for juvenile offenders are cruel and unusual punishment. It charges they have a lesser-developed character than adults, live longer in prison, and have a greater capacity for reform.

The lawsuit seeks parole reviews when the inmates reach 21, then every five years after.

Deborah Labelle, the lead attorney representing the ACLU, said she sympathizes with victims’ loved ones and the deep hurt they feel.

“You have a right to every feeling you have, certainly, and I would never try to persuade you to be different,” she said.

“That’s why we don’t have vigilante justice. The state and the prosecutorial role and the legislative role are all certainly different than the role of the victims’ family which may be to say, ‘You know what, I would like the death penalty.’ But we don’t have that in this state.”

Bishop-Jenkins, however, said it would be cruel and unusual punishment for victims’ families to continually face the possible release of the killers.

“Don’t torture victims families by making all of them go to parole hearings every five years for the rest of their lives,” she said. “That’s horrible.”

She scoffed at the idea life without parole would constitute cruel punishment for an offender just under 18, but not for a convict just turned 18.

“They’re trying to argue that the mere age of the offender makes the no-parole option equivalent to torture, and I just don’t see it,” she said. “I do know that when my sister was murdered, she was tortured.”

Bishop-Jenkins’ pregnant 25-year-old sister and her 28-year-old brother-in-law were shot to death inside their Chicago home by a 16-year-old in 1990.

“The man that killed her, who was four weeks shy of the adult criminal age in Illinois, who is now serving three life sentences, he is not being tortured,” she said.

“He gets to see his parents every week. … He’s got to go to school. He gets medical care. He gets exercise. … He gets to laugh. He gets to cry. He gets to worship. He gets to feel pleasure. … He gets to grow. He gets to learn. He gets to reflect.”

Some room for variation?

But Bishop-Jenkins does agree Michigan law allows too few options for sentencing juveniles in homicide cases.

“Our organization’s position is that age is not a factor as much as is the culpability of the individual offender,” she said. “We actually think that there should be a lot of case-by-case variance in court.”

In Michigan, homicide suspects ages 14 to 17 automatically go to adult court. If convicted of first-degree murder — which includes participating in a crime where someone else did the killing — the only possible sentence is life without parole in adult prison.

Patrick McLemore is doing that sentence for the killing of 67-year-old Burton community activist Oscar Manning during a 1999 home invasion.

He was 16. His 19-year-old partner was sentenced to 37 1/2 years to 50 years after pleading no contest to a lesser murder charge. McLemore maintains his only role was as a lookout.

His mother, Patricia McLemore of Burton, holds out hope she will someday see her son outside the walls of Kinross Correctional Facility in the Upper Peninsula. But she still thinks about the victim’s family.

“I try to put myself in the victim’s place,” said Patricia McLemore, 64. “I have wanted since it first happened to go to them and tell them how sorry I was that that happened. But my pastor told me, ‘No, you’re the last one they want to see.’ It still hurts and I do still think of them.”

She’s counting on the ACLU lawsuit to someday give her son a shot at parole.

But Manning’s family will do anything to keep him behind bars.

“You don’t have blood on your shoes when you’re just a lookout,” said Sue McFall, the victim’s daughter, referring to expert testimony during McLemore’s trial.

Neighborhood youths also testified McLemore told them he and Reid beat Manning with a wrench, according to Flint Journal files.

“All I know is that he needs to stay in there,” said McFall, 61, of Burton. “My family is going to have to fight to keep him in there.”

Robinson and Bishop-Jenkins oppose any comprehensive legislative or judicial measures that would have retroactive effect.

“If there’s a handful of them that should get out, then let’s find out who those are and let’s give them clemency,” Bishop-Jenkins said. “That’s what the governor’s for. If there are some that got over-sentenced, then fix it. Fix it through appeals, fix it though habeas, fix it through sentencing hearings. Fix it through gubernatorial clemency.”

Parole hearings every five years, Robinson agrees, would be torture.

“If they grant this, then every five years I have to go to a parole hearing because every five years she would be eligible,” she said of the teen convicted in her brother’s slaying, now a 37-year-old inmate at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Washtenaw County.

“So then I am definitely sentenced to a life sentence of reliving my brothers horror. And how is that fair to the innocent victims?”

Cases question life in prison sentences for juvenile crimes

StarNewsOnline, 2012

There is Peter Saunders, who, at the age of 16 stabbed and bludgeoned to death an elderly woman in her Chicago home. Years after the murder landed him in prison, he mailed a federal judge a letter that threatened to “put a nine millimeter slug right in your head.”

Then there is Kevin Boyd, who as a 16-year-old Michigan boy gave his mother keys to his father’s house knowing that she was headed there to kill him. Since being convicted for his role in the murder, Boyd earned his GED, several trade certificates and, according to court documents, is considered a model inmate.

Stories like those have come to personify opposing sides in a swirling debate over the issue of juvenile justice as the U.S. Supreme Court heads into this week preparing to decide whether sentencing teenagers to life imprisonment violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

On Tuesday, the justices are expected to begin hearing arguments in two cases whose outcome could reshape criminal law and give inmates once consigned to die behind bars a shot at getting out.

The Supreme Court ruling could reverberate across the country, bringing about change in 43 states, including North Carolina, where convicted juveniles can be locked up for life.

North Carolina is a particularly unique situation because it is one of two states that classifies 16-year-olds as adults in the eyes of the court; other states define adulthood as over 18.

Experts say the court’s determination could become ammunition for those wanting reforms in North Carolina law.

“I can imagine, depending on how the case comes out, there could be language helpful to those wanting to change the juvenile age in North Carolina,” said James Markham, assistant professor of public law and government at the UNC School of Government.

The upcoming decision has prompted a spirited discussion about federalism, victims’ rights, criminal justice reform and the culpability of young killers.

Over the past several years, the Supreme Court has been steadily chipping away at severe sentences, especially when it comes to teenage offenders.

In 2005, it banned the death penalty for juveniles. And two years ago, it made a landmark ruling in Graham v. Florida that courts may only impose life sentences on juveniles convicted of murder.

Now, the court will consider two cases involving 14-year-olds, with human rights advocates urging justices to extend the Graham decision to give young murderers sentenced to spend the rest of their days in a prison cell a chance at release.

One case involves Evan Miller, who was convicted in Alabama for a 2003 murder in which he and an older youth beat his 52-year-old neighbor with a baseball bat and then set the victim’s house ablaze. The three had spent the evening smoking marijuana and playing drinking games when the altercation ensued. The neighbor died of smoke inhalation.

The second concerns Kuntrell Jackson, an Arkansas prisoner who joined two older boys in robbing a local video store in 1999. After demanding money from the clerk several times, one of the other boys fatally shot her with a shotgun.

How many inmates the Supreme Court decision will ultimately affect varies by opinion. The American Civil Liberties Union estimates there are 2,570 prisoners who were sentenced to life without parole as adolescents, including 44 in North Carolina.

Others have denounced that statistic as exaggerated and manufactured. Charles Stimson, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and co-author of “Adult Time for Adult Crimes,” said the actual figure is probably around 1,300 nationwide, but could be slightly higher because some states have failed to keep accurate records.

Much of the debate centers on the degree to which juveniles should be held accountable for their crimes and the extent their behavior is molded by environmental factors outside their control.

Advocates of repealing life without parole policies for young offenders have been buoyed in recent years by a throng of research they say proves adolescents are psychologically and biologically underdeveloped, and are therefore prone to rash decision-making and more likely to conform to social pressures. But more importantly, they argue, juveniles are retrievable and capable of recasting their identities.

“That branch of science has made incredible strides in the last decade and a half with the result being that we now have a large body of well-respected scientific evidence,” said Robin Walker Sterling, an assistant professor at the University of Denver and a former special counsel at the National Juvenile Defender Center.

Research often cited by opponents of juvenile life sentences was conducted by Dr. Laurence Steinberg, a psychology professor at Temple University, and his colleagues. He said that their work has shown “pretty conclusively” that as a group, adolescents are more short-sighted, impulsive and susceptible to pressure than adults.

“The brain system responsible for people engaging in risk-taking, sensation-seeking and reckless behavior are much more easily aroused during adolescence than they are during adulthood,” he added. “And that is especially true between the ages of 10 and 16.”

Victims’ rights groups and other justice expects have filed briefs with the Supreme Court urging it not to strip states of their right to give juveniles life punishments, arguing that even young people can distinguish right from wrong and are well-aware of the consequences of their actions.

Jennifer Bishop Jenkins, president of a Michigan-based victims’ rights group called the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, said the national discourse largely excludes victims who live everyday with the lingering thought of how their loved ones died.

“What they’re proposing is retroactively undoing life without parole sentences. These victims’ families have been through hell,” she said. “If anybody is a human rights advocate, they should care about the victims’ rights as well.”

In 1990, Jenkins’ sister and brother-in-law and their unborn child were murdered by a 17-year-old who was later sentenced to life without parole. Jenkins said forcing already traumatized families to relive the events of the murder by appearing before a parole hearing.

“There’s this huge advocacy movement by people that claim to be human rights advocates and yet they are willing to torture victims’ families by reopening cases that are years old and make them go back to court and the parole board for the rest of their lives,” Jenkins said.

Should Juveniles Receive Life Sentences Without Parole?

NewsOneStaff, 2012

Opponents say that murderers sentenced to life without parole, no matter how young, do not deserve the chance to be free. Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins is among those opponents. She worked hard to end the death penalty in Illinois but parts company with fellow criminal justice reform advocates on this issue, in large part because it will force the families of victims to again confront tragedies when inmates apply for release.

Her opposition is based in personal experience. Her pregnant sister and her brother-in-law were murdered in April 1990 when 16-year-old David Biro forced them into the basement of their Winnetka, Ill., home and shot them to death as they pleaded for their lives, a horrific crime discovered by her father. Biro is serving a life without parole sentence.

“It is an utter violation of due process for them to say that a finalized case, a finalized sentence, that they would reopen that,” said Bishop-Jenkins, who is president of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers and director of Illinoisvictims.org. “We never get to be free of this guy. He gets a shot at release, but my family never gets freedom from this. This will change everything for victim’s families.”

Bishop-Jenkins said she does not oppose some change in new cases _ although she believes that judges should have the flexibility to impose a life-without-parole sentence in the most heinous cases. But it is the old cases in which witnesses have died or evidence can no longer be found that she said are the most troubling. That, she said, will make it more difficult for the families of victims to mount opposition when an inmate comes up for parole.

“It’s the bait-and-switch that’s so torturous,” she said. “We walked away from that case 21 years ago believing it was over.”

Supreme Court to take up life terms for young killers

Mon., March 19, 2012

Steve Mills

Chicago Tribune

‘Violation of due process’

Opponents say that murderers sentenced to life without parole, no matter how young, do not deserve the chance to be free. Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins is among those opponents. She worked hard to end the death penalty in Illinois but parts company with fellow criminal justice reform advocates on this issue, in large part because it will force the families of victims to again confront tragedies when inmates apply for release.

Her opposition is based in personal experience. Her pregnant sister and her brother-in-law were murdered in April 1990 when 16-year-old David Biro forced them into the basement of their Winnetka, Ill., home and shot them to death as they pleaded for their lives, a horrific crime discovered by her father. Biro is serving a life without parole sentence.

“It is an utter violation of due process for them to say that a finalized case, a finalized sentence, that they would reopen that,” said Bishop-Jenkins, who is president of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers and director of Illinoisvictims.org. “We never get to be free of this guy. He gets a shot at release, but my family never gets freedom from this. This will change everything for victims’ families.”

Before he went to jail, Larod Styles, like Adolfo Davis, had gotten into some trouble – but nothing approaching what happened when Styles was 16. That was when he and three others were charged with the December 1995 murders of two men gunned down in an auto sales office on the city’s South Side during a robbery. Because he was 16, he was automatically tried as an adult. Although someone else was the alleged triggerman, Styles was still convicted of murder. Because two people were killed, he was subject to a mandatory sentence of life without parole.

Weighing new hope for young killers

By Steve Mills

Posted Mar 19, 2012

CONSIDERING VICTIMS

Opponents say that murderers sentenced to life without parole, no matter how young, do not deserve the chance to be free. Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins is among those opponents. She worked hard to end the death penalty in Illinois but parts company with fellow criminal justice reform advocates on this issue, in large part because it will force the families of victims to again confront tragedies when inmates apply for release.

Her opposition is based on personal experience. Her pregnant sister and her brother-in-law were murdered in April 1990 when 16-year-old David Biro forced them into the basement of their Winnetka, Ill., home and shot them to death as they pleaded for their lives, a horrific crime discovered by her father. Biro is serving a life without parole sentence.

“It is an utter violation of due process for them to say that a finalized case, a finalized sentence, that they would reopen that,” said Bishop-Jenkins, who is president of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers and director of Illinoisvictims.org. “We never get to be free of this guy. He gets a shot at release, but my family never gets freedom from this. This will change everything for victim’s families.”

Families of murder victims criticize report about juveniles serving life sentences

• ANN ZANIEWSKI

 May 27, 2012

Some families of murder victims are criticizing a report that advocates ending the practice of sentencing young offenders to life in prison without parole.

Jody Robinson Cotaling of Davisburg said the report, “Basic Decency: Protecting the human rights of children,” is flawed, beginning with its name.

“They named it, ‘Basic Decency,’ ” she said. “To us, that is just very demeaning to victims. … We find the use of that very offensive.”

The report recently was released in partnership with the ACLU of Michigan and an advocacy group called Second Chances 4 Youth. It makes a number of recommendations, including abolishing sentences of life without parole for people who commit homicides before they turn 18 and requiring judges to consider a young person’s immaturity, lack of experience and other factors in issuing sentences in such cases.

According to the report, Michigan has the second-highest number of people serving lifetime prison sentences for offenses that occurred before they turned 18.

Members of National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers are

critical of the “Basic Decency” report and say they’re working on a page-by-page analysis that will be posted on their website, www.teenkillers.org.

Robinson Cotaling, who is secretary of the group’s Michigan chapter, said the report was filled with “half-truths” and didn’t tell the whole story.

Attorney Deborah LaBelle, principal author of the report and director of the Juvenile Life Without Parole Initiative, stands behind the document.

“The report relied upon objective data obtained from the Michigan Department of Corrections, documented peer review research, the (U.S.) Supreme Court decisions and findings in Graham (v. Florida), and a great deal of records and transcripts,” LaBelle said.

Robinson Cotaling said the section in the report about “brain science” was misrepresented. The report said the brain’s frontal lobe, which is associated with impulse control and understanding consequences, is underdeveloped in adolescents compared with adults. Scientific research has shown that the part of the brain that allows for mature decision-making is not fully developed in teenagers, according to the report.

“We don’t dispute that the frontal lobe grows in capacity into (a person’s) late 20s,” Robinson Cotaling said. “There’s nothing in the brain science that diminishes criminal culpability.”  

The report says that to date, 376 young people have been sentenced in Michigan to life without parole.

“Regarding the number of 376 offenders — we demand the list of names,” reads a page on NOVJL’s website that criticizes the report. “First, we know that this includes all the 17-year-old convicted murderers serving life. This report labels them juveniles but under Michigan law (and many other states) 17 is adult age.”

NOVJL’s website says the report’s claim that the U.S. is the only nation in the world to sentence teen killers to life in prison isn’t true, and that the report contains flawed references to court rulings.

LaBelle said the United Nations, Amnesty International and various other sources have recognized that the U.S. is the only country that has such a sentence for youth younger than age 18.

LaBelle said young people who commit serious crimes need to face significant punishment, but there should be a recognition that they are different than adults. She noted that people cannot vote, join the military or get married without parental consent until they turn 18.

“We know that they’re not mature,” LaBelle said when the report was first released. “When they do mature, they’re not always what they were, and they should be given a second chance.”

LaBelle said a main concern is that adults often end up serving less time than juveniles for comparable crimes due to plea bargaining.

The average length of prison time served by an adult who took a plea offer for a first-degree homicide charge was 12.2 years, according to the report. Juveniles are at a disadvantage in negotiating and understanding plea offers because of their immaturity, and they often reject plea offers at a higher rate than adults, the report said.

In Michigan, a conviction of first-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole. A conviction of armed robbery or other serious crime that is categorized as a capital offense carries a maximum penalty of life or any term of years in prison.

Prosecutors have the discretion to charge people ages 14 and older as adults in cases involving serious crimes. If someone 14 or older is convicted of first-degree murder, a judge must sentence that person to life in prison without parole if the defendant was charged as an adult.

If someone younger than 14 is charged with a capital offense, the prosecutor can still designate him or her as an adult, but the judge has discretion in sentencing and can sentence that person as a juvenile or an adult, or issue a blended sentence.

Robinson Cotaling’s involvement in the issues surrounding juvenile life without parole sentences grew out of the death of her brother, 28-year-old auto mechanic James Cotaling.

James Cotaling was found stabbed to death in May 1990 in a house in Pontiac. Barbara Hernandez, who was 16 at the time of the killing, and her older boyfriend, James Roy Hyde, were convicted of murder and robbery charges.

They were sentenced to life in prison.

Robinson Cotaling and other members of her family believe Hernandez, who was reported to have posed as a prostitute to lure James Cotaling to the house, was directly involved in the killing. They believe she should stay behind bars for the rest of her life.

Officials with the Michigan Women’s Justice & Clemency Project have filed petitions for clemency on behalf of Hernandez. Carol Jacobsen, director of the Justice & Clemency Project, told The Oakland Press in 2010 that Hernandez had an abusive home life and Hyde preyed upon her. She said Hyde, not Hernandez, was the killer.

When a hearing was held in 2010 on Hernandez’s petition for commutation, James Cotaling’s family urged members of the Michigan Parole and Commutation Board not to consider her for release.

They were thrilled when they got a letter saying that Hernandez had not been granted clemency.

Robinson Cotaling said that while sentences of life without parole might not be an appropriate sentence in every case involving a teenager who killed someone, it should remain an option.

“I will not ever say that the juvenile justice system does not have flaws, and we’re not saying that every single teen killer deserves life without parole,” Robinson Cotaling said.

“We’re saying it needs to stay on the table for the worst of the worst.”

https://www.dailytribune.com/news/families-of-murder-victims-criticize-report-about-juveniles-serving-life/article_48e772fd-c9e4-5859-a69c-73f9f51700a5.html

Remember the Victims of Juvenile Offenders

Appeals Accepted in First Miller Cases

JJIE, 2012

The National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers brings together grieving families.

“While we understand the tragic consequences to the killers, the entire context of this decision is first and foremost the appalling and senseless murders of our innocent loved ones and the devastation left behind,” said Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, NOVJL president, in a statement.  Her organization says Miller reopens the judicial part of their painful ordeals that victim families considered closed.

 

Mississippi ‘throws away’ juveniles, robbing them of chance for redemption, advocates say

By Shirley L. Smith
Mississippi Center For Investigative Reporting

In 2005, the court struck down the death penalty for children in Roper v. Simmons. At the time, five juvenile offenders in Mississippi were on death row, said André de Gruy, the state’s public defender. In 2010, in Graham v. Florida, the court banned life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes. Then, in 2012, in Miller v. Alabama, it banned mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles who committed a homicide before they were 18. Four years later, the court ruled in Montgomery v. Louisiana that Miller should be applied retroactively.

These decisions have led to reforms in the sentencing of youth across the country, but ambiguities in the Miller and Montgomery rulings have caused confusion in the lower courts, leading to extensive litigation. And while hundreds of juvenile offenders destined to die in prison have become eligible for parole or been released, their journey has been an agonizing, emotional rollercoaster for their victims’ families, who have had to relive the murders of their loved ones at resentencing and parole hearings.

Victims’ families deserve legal finality so they can move on with their lives, said Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, founder and acting president of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers.

After the Miller and Montgomery rulings, Bishop-Jenkins, a resident of Illinois, said she received hundreds of calls from victims’ families who thought their cases were closed, only to find out they would be reopened and they would have to re-engage with the killer of their loved ones at resentencing hearings and repeated parole hearings. “That is torture,” she said.

“The court has to take that into account. It’s not just about the killers. It’s also about the trauma left behind in the wake of these devastating crimes,” Bishop-Jenkins said. Her sister, brother-in-law and their unborn child were murdered in Winnetka, Illinois, by a teenager, who “lived in a wealthy suburb” and came from “a great family.” Though this tragedy occurred 30 years ago, her emotions are raw. “Whenever I get close to thinking about this murder, this loss in my life, my heart races. I am already shaking. My throat is tight.”

Mississippi’s Parole Board meets with victims’ families before parole hearings, so they do not have to interact with the perpetrator, board Chairman Steven Pickett said. The hearings are conducted remotely, with the inmates attending via video from the prison. However, if family members choose to attend a resentencing hearing, they would have to re-engage with the murderer.

The Supreme Court’s Miller decision did not ban all life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, but it held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.”

How should juvenile offenders be sentenced?

Author: Lacey CrispPublished: 5:50 PM EST November 13, 2020

In 2020, 12 children under the age of 18 are suspects in Columbus homicide cases. 

There’s a group pushing to take another look at how these juveniles are punished.

“My sister, her husband and their unborn child were murdered by a 16 year-old,” Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, President of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murders.

Bishop-Jenkins has become a reluctant national leader when it comes to juvenile sentencing. After three of her family members were murdered in a Chicago suburb, she formed the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers.

“We are trying to keep other teen family victims like ours informed about what is happening about all the changes in the law and advocate for victim’s rights,” Bishop-Jenkins said.

The group does not have an opinion on the sentence the juveniles are given, but would like more done to evaluate teens of violent crimes to separate the offenders who are likely to re-offend and those who can be rehabilitated.

“We don’t think there’s enough of that happening where real psychiatric expertise about psychopathology is being brought to bear,” said Bishop-Jenkins.

She adds instead of treating all juvenile offenders the same, if the system would do a better job sorting the teens based on their mental health needs, it will be better for the community, and less likely for the teen to re-offend.

“We know that sometimes just a few years in jail and aging out, or a few years in a serious mental health program and getting older and more mature can be tremendously helpful,” Bishop-Jenkins said.

Mother of murder victim advocated for new parole changes

The change had detractors – including the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers. They both argued for judges to have discretion in sentencing life without parole and that passing the law would cause victims to relive trauma through ongoing parole hearings.

The push to stop putting juveniles away for life

On Wednesday, January 20, the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers released a statement on the matter saying in part that they oppose “over-sentencing” juvenile offenders that are disproportionate to their crimes and recognize that life without parole may sometimes be a disproportionate sentence for juvenile offenders, however they also say some pose a long-term danger.

While many juvenile offenders have the potential for positive change, there are many who are psychopaths. Psychopaths will always pose a danger because there is no cure or treatment for psychopathy. In such cases, life without parole may be necessary to protect the public.

NOVJM believes that each juvenile offender should be sentenced based on their individual characteristics. Advocates of ending life sentences for juveniles argue that they are categorically less culpable due to the “hallmarks of youth”– impulsivity, susceptibility to peer pressure, etc. However, not all juveniles are the same. Many juvenile criminals do not display any of the “hallmarks of youth.” Rather than being impulsive, they extensively plan out their crimes. And rather than being under peer pressure, they commit their crimes alone. A great example of this is the Donald Torres case from Delaware. Torres broke into the Godt family’s home, spread kerosene around the home, and set it ablaze. He then watched the house burn down with the family inside. The mother, father, three-year-old son, and one-year-old daughter were all killed.

It is nonsensical to say that Torres should not get life without parole because most other juveniles are impulsive and susceptible to peer pressure, even though none of these traits applied to him. We believe that juvenile offenders should be sentenced based on the facts surrounding their specific crimes and not based on the general traits of others in their age group.

Finally, we ask that victims be considered. Murder victims do not get second chances. Many murder victims’ families feel that it is unfair for the killers to be released. They believe that the murderers should not be allowed to enjoy the very freedoms they robbed their loved ones of. To prevent the injustice of an early release, they will fight parole. For these victims, the parole process is incredibly difficult and painful. They suffer nightmares, flashbacks, and panic attacks. This trauma is intensified when parole hearings are more frequent.

Currently, the national debate regarding life sentences for juveniles is focused on the offenders. Victims are forgotten. We ask that Maryland lawmakers keep us in mind when making decisions that will significantly impact us.

Maryland General Assembly considers a bill to end life sentences for juveniles

However, many family members of victims feel the legislation takes away their loved one’s justice. In a statement the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers wrote, “In the national debate surrounding the sentencing of juvenile criminals, victims are forgotten. The focus is on the offenders even though they are the ones who chose to place themselves in the positions they are in by committing crimes. The victims did not choose their situations. They truly are the most vulnerable and voiceless people in the criminal justice system. “

NOVJM adds the argument of second chances for offenders is unfair, especially when victims of crimes like murder, don’t have a second chance. 

“Proponents of the Juvenile Restoration Act talk about “second chances” and hope and futures. But lost in all this mantra are the victims. Murder victims are denied hope and futures. They don’t get second chances. Many murder victims’ families feel it is unfair for the killers to be released and will try to prevent release by speaking up at hearings,” NOVJM added.

A hearing on the Juvenile Restoration Act is scheduled for Wednesday, February 17 in the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

Legislation proposes parole eligibility for juveniles serving life sentences

In Senate Bill 247, it would make sure that juveniles sentenced anywhere from 15 years to life could be up for the possibility of parole after 15 years behind bars. In a committee meeting, people who were sentenced for crimes as a child spoke out in favor of this, adding that redemption is possible.

However, families of victims of crimes committed by juveniles spoke out in opposition saying the proposal is cruel to victims and their families. The horrific 2017 Clovis library shooting, caused by then 16-year-old Nathaniel Jouett, was referenced often. One woman who lost her mom, Kristina Carter, in that shooting spoke out strongly against the bill.

“The violence that the men, women, and children witnessed in the library that day is inescapable,” said Kristina Carter’s daughter, Evie Fisher. “We will be haunted in a prison of our own for the rest of our days because we can’t have our loved ones back.”

New Mexico has seen some other horrific cases from juveniles, like Nehemiah Griego who was only 15 years old when he killed his father, mother, and three young siblings inside their South Valley home in 2013. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

The bill is now waiting to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If this gets passed, analysts believe more than 40 people who are currently serving time for crimes committed as juveniles could become eligible for parole. There is now a petition online in opposition to this legislation.

Petition circulates against Senate Bill 247

SANTA FE, N.M. (KRQE) – Nearly 2,000 people have signed an online petition to get a proposed bill thrown out of the legislature, but not everyone is against the legislation. “The sounds, the smells, the screaming, the gunshots,” Jessica Throne remembers the day Nathaniel Jouett walked into the Clovis Carver Library, where she worked and started shooting.

“You’re stuck with that,” said Throne. “Not only was I shot and injured, I lost two of my very close friends,” said Throne.

A judge gave Jouett two life sentences with a chance at parole back in 2019. With good time, he could be eligible for parole in 30 years. Senate Bill 247 would give Jouett and other juvenile offenders serving 15 years to life, an opportunity for parole after 15 years behind bars.

“We obviously don’t want this bill to be passed,” said Chelsey Jorde. Her mom, Kristen Carter was killed in that 2017 library shooting. “Some of the acts that have been performed to get these juveniles to have these sentences are just terrible,” said Jorde.

Jorde, along with her sister Evie Fisher, and friend Jessica Throne are helping circulate a petition to try and keep this legislation from being passed. “It’s a slap in the face that this legislation is even on the table right now,” said Fisher.

But, not everyone is against the bill, Carissa Mcgee fully supports Senate Bill 247. When she was a teenager, Mcgee was sentenced to 21 years in prison for trying to kill her mom and sister. She served nearly nine years at the correctional facility in Grants.

Since doing her time, Mcgee says she’s turned her life around. “I had the fortune to know what it’s like to be given a second chance,” said Mcgee, who is now a referee for the New Mexico Athletics Association, and an advocate for youthful offenders. She says Senate Bill 247 will give other kids just like her that same chance.

The bill is now waiting to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The petition has received more than 17-hundred signatures, they’re trying to get 25-hundred.

Senate to vote on juvenile sentences bill

BY ISABELLA ALVES / JOURNAL NORTH

Friday, March 5th, 2021 at 10:20pm

Copyright © 2021 Albuquerque Journal

SANTA FE – A bill that would reform the way children are sentenced in New Mexico garnered opposition from victims who said repeated parole board hearings would re-traumatize them.

The Juvenile Life Sentences Without Parole bill, sponsored by Rep. Dayan Hochman-Vigil and Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, both Albuquerque Democrats, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday evening, but with an amendment proposed to ease the burden on victims.

Only Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca, R-Belen, voted against the bill. The legislation, Senate Bill 247, is now headed to the Senate floor for a vote. If passed, it will head to the House.

The bill would allow people sentenced as juveniles to get their case reviewed after 15 years and then have parole board hearings every two years until released. Before the amendment, the crime victims would have to be notified and involved in each parole board hearing. Most crime victims who testified said this would re-traumatize them.

Nathan Spulak spoke in opposition of the bill and said his sister was attacked and left for dead by a juvenile offender. He said his family wouldn’t be able to move on from the crime if they’re forced to relive the trauma every two years at a parole board hearing.

Among the crime victims who spoke in opposition of the bill were survivors of the 2017 Clovis Library shooting. Nathaniel Jouett was 16 years old when he killed two people and seriously wounded four others, according to previous news reports.

The amendment, brought forward by Sen. Bill O’Niell, D-Albuquerque, would allow crime victims to opt-out of these parole hearings. If they changed their mind later, they could opt back in.

But crime victims weren’t the only ones opposed to the legislation.

The New Mexico Attorney General’s Office voiced its opposition to the two-year parole provision of the bill, also mentioning the burden it has on victims.

Matt Baca, chief counsel for the office, said the office has heard an outcry from crime victims against the bill. He said the office isn’t against the intent of the bill, but can’t support the frequency of the parole hearings and the toll it takes on crime victims.

First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said she supports the bill and it’s based on the recognition that young people have the capacity to change. She said she accepts the science that juvenile offenders are unable to asses the risks and consequences before committing a crime. Young people can also change and be rehabilitated, she said.

Carissa McGee was one of those people. At the age of 16, McGee was sentenced as an adult to 21 years in prison for two counts of attempted murder.

After eight years in prison, she said she was a changed woman. She was given a second chance at a parole board hearing and has now successfully completed her probation and parole.

She said she’s in the process of earning a graduate degree, has a full-time job and started a nonprofit and wrote a book about her experience. She said all this was possible due to the second chance the court system gave her.

She was a violent felon convicted as a child, she said, and proof that redemption is possible.

Bill seeks to give violent youth offenders opportunity for parole after 15 years

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.- Lawmakers will soon hear a bill that would end life without parole for violent juveniles and could reduce life sentences for youth offenders who were sentenced as adults.

The bill could impact 75 people who are currently in New Mexico prisons.

Those backing the bill, including the ACLU of New Mexico, said it won’t give people a free pass out of prison. Instead, they claim it will give prisoners a chance to show how they’ve improved after 15 years behind bars.

“In their early 30s, we will know much more about them,” said Denali Wilson, an attorney with the ACLU.

Wilson said 24 states already did away with juvenile life without parole. Half of those states also have an early parole program.

“I am the population that this bill directly targets,” said Carissa McGee, who was sentenced, at age 16, to 20 years in prison for attempted murder. “I know what it is to be a violent youthful offender.”

McGee now works as a motivational speaker. She’s also written a book and works with youth advocacy groups.

“Violent youthful offenders can still make a huge impact in their community in a positive meaningful way if given a chance,” she said.

McGee said offenders would have to meet various criteria to be let out of prison after 15 years.

“You have to demonstrate you are a safe member, you have been productive in your healing, that you’ve taken full accountability of your actions,” She said.

Senate Bill 247 has a lot of opposition. A petition, with thousands of signatures, claims letting youthful offenders out early is a danger to the community and would undo the healing of crime survivors.

New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said it’s important for lawmakers to remember the victims.

Balderas said in a statement, “The legislature must carefully balance the protection of victims and families traumatized by violence, while improving long term mental health treatment options for violent offenders in a safe way that does not re-traumatize these survivor families.”

Currently, in New Mexico, people sentenced to life in prison are eligible for parole review after serving 30 years.

‘It’s frustrating’: Clovis library shooting victims speak out against SB 247

CLOVIS, New Mexico (KFDA) – Victims of the Clovis Carver Public Library mass shooting are speaking out against a bill making its way through the New Mexico legislature.

Senate Bill 247 gives violent juvenile offenders who have been given a life sentence a chance at parole after 15 years.

On Wednesday, it passed the senate floor.

If it becomes law, it could affect the outcome for the convicted library shooter, Nathaniel Jouett.

Jouett was 16-years-old when he killed two people and wounded four others at the library.

Two years ago, he received two life sentences for his actions and the pain he caused others, pain some are still dealing with today.

“I feel like it’s an absolute disregard to the victims and family members who lost loved ones,” said Jessica Thron.

Thron was on[e] of the victims who was wounded in the shooting.

She and others said they feel ignored by legislators when it comes to SB 247.

“The justice system has already given them sentences,” she said. “And it feels like we’re just going back on that. I feel like the victims are just kind of pushed to the side. We don’t really have a say.”

Mandie Walters and Evie Fisher both lost their mothers Wanda Walters and Krissy Carter in the shooting.

“I just want to make people aware of this and also, you know, be my mom’s voice because she can’t do it anymore,” said Walters.

“I have just kind of barely begun my healing journey because I didn’t want to believe it for so long,” said Fisher.

They feel the age, in this case, doesn’t matter.

“I understand that he was under 18 at the time but I also firmly believe that he knew exactly what he was doing,” said Walters. “It was premeditated. And I just really don’t feel that he deserves to be out in such a short time. My mom didn’t deserve to be [] shot like that.”

Eric Dixon, a Portales defense attorney believes the bill gives juveniles the second chance they deserve.

“A child’s brain at 15 or 16 or even later is not fully developed,” said Dixon. “That makes a huge difference. This gives somebody who is much different at 30 years old, a second chance at life.”

Although, the victims disagree.

“We’ve all been teenagers, we’ve all gone through our own angst, we’ve all gone through periods of just probably just really wild anger that we probably couldn’t even fathom at this point right now and in our adult lives, but there’s still lines that we know are not to be crossed,” said Fisher.

‘What about us?’: New Mexico crime victims outraged over youth parole bill

Bethany FreudenthalLas Cruces Sun-News

LAS CRUCES – On Aug. 28, 2017, Nathaniel Jouett walked into the Clovis Carter Library and opened fire, killing two and injuring others.

Jouett, then 16, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two life sentences without the possibility of parole, plus 40 years.

The families affected by the mass shooting didn’t think they’d have to hear from Jouett again following his lengthy sentence. But those victims are now speaking out after a bill passed by the New Mexico Senate last week could impact Jouett’s sentence, as well as the sentences of other juvenile offenders.

Senate Bill 247 would prohibit juveniles from being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The most serious child offenders could still be sentenced to life in prison, which in New Mexico is 30 years incarcerated. If the bill is successful, law would mandate those juvenile offenders go before a parole board after 15 years and every five years after that.

Proponents say this bill gives a second chance to juveniles who may not have been capable of realizing the impact of their crimes. Families and victims of crimes committed by juveniles say having to continually attend parole board hearings is like pulling a scab that has just begun to heal. 

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Dayan Hochman-Vigil and Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, both Democrats from Albuquerque, still need to be passed by the New Mexico House and signed by the governor before it becomes law. The House has until Saturday to debate and vote on the bill.

Hochman-Vigil said the bill would impact juvenile offenders currently serving time, meaning Jouett could be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years.

Victims speak out

Jessica Thron, a library worker whose shoulder was shattered by a bullet fired by Jouett, said she’s speaking out against the bill for Wanda Walters and Krissie Carter, the two killed in the Clovis shooting, who no longer have a voice.

“It’s hurtful, because it seems like lawmakers want to do everything they can in their power to help these murderers — get them rehabilitated and get them back out into society as soon as possible, and it’s like what about their victims? What about the ones who were killed that are gone forever? What about those of us who are still alive? What about us,” she said. 

Carter’s daughter, Evie Fisher, said the bill blindsided the victims and families in the Jouett case, who now feel a “pretty good chunk of time for peace” has been taken away. 

“Mass shooters, you just don’t think, no matter what, that that kind of act really warrants the sentence that he got and it’s just really frustrating to pick it back up so soon after, because we’re just barely beginning our healing journey at this point,” she said.

Youthful offenders, Fisher said, should have to earn their redemption, instead of just having to wait out their sentences, because that’s what it’s like in the real world. 

What about the ones who were killed that are gone forever? What about those of us who are still alive? What about us?

“We have to take our lives into our own hands and make our own future, and they should have to as well,” Fisher said. “Even more so, because of what they have done.” 

Mandy Walters, whose mother was killed in the attack, said she’s forgiven Jouett, but that doesn’t mean that he should be able to get out of prison. 

“He needs to serve the time for what he did,” she said. 

Why allow parole?

New Mexico’s Senate passed the bill on 28-11 vote.

Sen. Carrie Hamblen, D-Las Cruces, said she voted in favor of the legislation because at 16 years old, she was a completely different person from who she is now at 52, and these “children” should have the opportunity to develop.

The bill, she said is not an excuse for the crime. 

“This is an explanation of how people are thinking and how people are developing at that age when they make very bad decisions,” she said. “According to this bill, they’re still in jail for 15 years and then get reevaluated for parole, so if they’re not rehabilitated, they’re not going to get parole.” 

Hamblen said her focus is on giving adolescents who make really bad decisions an opportunity to become better people and doesn’t see it as negating the pain of families affected by these crimes.

Fisher said she feels lawmakers in support of the bill are ignoring the “real” victims.

“They’re treating the child as the victim, they’re treating the adolescent as a victim, when they’re really just a victim of their own choice,” she said. 

True crime show to reveal unshared details of Wadsworth’s ‘most horrific’ killing in years

Stephanie Warsmith Akron Beacon Journal

Howard Leasure searched his 98-year-old’s aunt’s Wadsworth home in April 2018, hoping for clues about where she was.

He looked in the closet to see if he could find Margaret Douglas’ favorite shoes. He found one but realized it was attached to her dead body.

“I thought, ‘Oh lord, it’s her,’” Leasure recalled, breaking into tears. “I pretty much lost it…”

Leasure shared this painful memory in an episode of “Unexpected Killer” that will air Friday night  on the Oxygen network. The show details the murder of Douglas at the hands of Gavon Ramsay, her 17-year-old neighbor.

Ramsay was convicted of Douglas’ strangulation death in January 2019 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Douglas’ family agreed to participate in the show last summer because they were hoping to call attention to then-pending legislation that removed life without parole as a sentencing option for juveniles convicted of serious crimes. They hoped highlighting the case might dissuade lawmakers, but the legislation passed. The law becomes effective April 12.

“We felt it was important to get the real story out — a lot of details were not known,” said Patricia Leasure, Douglas’ great niece. “We felt sharing the story would potentially show people there are special circumstances in which — just because someone is 17 — it doesn’t mean reformation is possible or parole is appropriate.”

Wadsworth Police Chief David Singleton called Douglas’ murder on April 6, 2018, “the most horrific crime” he has seen in his 28 years with the department.

Police discovered in their investigation that Ramsay sneaked into the home of Douglas — who never locked her door — and took a video of her sleeping on the couch. He strangled her and spent two hours taking more videos and photographs of her corpse, including several of a sexual nature. He then put her body in a small closet, covered her with clothes and a vacuum cleaner and returned to his home five doors down before his parents awoke.

“He just has evil in him to do something like that,” Singleton said. “That’s the only way I can explain it.”

Ramsay pleaded no contest and was found guilty in November 2018 of all the charges against him, which included aggravated murder, murder, aggravated burglary, kidnapping and gross abuse of a corpse. He had been bound over to adult court because of the severity of the charges, but didn’t face the death penalty because he was under 18.

During Ramsay’s sentencing, Christine Ramsay, his mother, detailed her son’s mental-health issues and how she had sought help for him through counseling and medication.

Patricia Leasure, however, called Gavon Ramsay a coward who preyed on someone more vulnerable. She said she thinks he used her great-aunt as a warmup for others he wanted to kill, whom he had written about in a notebook.

Medina County Prosecutor S. Forrest Thompson echoed this concern as he urged Judge Joyce Kimbler to sentence Ramsay to life without parole.

Gavon Ramsay apologized and said he couldn’t explain what happened.

“I’d take it back in a heartbeat if I could,” he said. “I feel terrible for what I’ve done and I will never do anything like that again … I constantly live in regret and shame.”

Kimbler sentenced Ramsay to life without parole, calling Ramsay “unfit to re-enter society.”

Whether that sentence will remain, however, is unclear because of the new law that abolished life without parole as a penalty for juveniles, with young people given the chance to be considered for release after spending a specified amount of time in prison. Proponents said the U.S. is the only country in the world that sentences children to life without parole eligibility.

The idea was to give young people who commit serious crimes the opportunity to be released from prison if they are rehabilitated.

The change garnered some interesting allies, including Browns offensive linemen Chris Hubbard and Kendall Lamm, who wrote a letter to Ohio senators supporting the legislation. The players highlighted how five of the 12 people sentenced to life without parole as juveniles are Black, despite Black Ohioans comprising only 14.3% of the population.

Thompson, though, was among those who voiced opposition, pointing to the Ramsay case as a reason judges might want to impose such a harsh sentence.

The National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murders also spoke out against the legislation because of concern for the impact it would have on families.

“Victims like Margaret’s family will be forced to relive the crimes at parole hearings,” said the group’s Ohio coordinator.

Gavon Ramsay, who turns 20 next week, is incarcerated at Grafton Correctional Institution in Lorain County. He has so far lost his appeals.

Laura Austen, deputy director of policy and outreach for the Ohio Public Defender’s office that is representing Ramsay, declined to comment on his case.

Austen, however, did say her office supported the elimination of the life-without-parole penalty for juveniles.

“This aligns Ohio with 30 other states and over a decade of court precedent,” she said.

Thompson said Ramsay’s case may return to the trial court based on the new law.

“Based on legislative decisions, the family now has to relive the facts,” he said. “They were given some small measure of closure knowing he would never get out of prison.”

“Whatever has to be done, we will be prepared to do it,” he added.

Patricia Leasure said her family has been through a roller-coaster ride since her aunt’s death, with the sentencing, Ramsay’s appeals and the debate on the new law. If Ramsay is ever eligible for parole, she said the family will oppose his release.

“We believe he is incapable of reform and, if he was back on the street, would be a danger to society and people in his community,” she said.

After her aunt’s death, Leasure, who lives in Michigan near Ann Arbor, said she had an alarm installed in her home and got a concealed carry permit and a gun — all steps she hadn’t fathomed previously. She said her parents, Howard and Cindy Leasure, share this unease.

“Our sense of safety was forever changed,” she said.

Supporters of criminal justice reform bill make final push as deadline nears

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.- Time is running out for a criminal justice reform bill in the New Mexico legislature.

As of this posting Friday night, Senate Bill 247 is still alive, but would need to pass in the House in the session’s final hours in order to become law.

The bill asks the question: when is the right time to give violent offenders who committed crimes as teenagers a second chance?

One of the sources of support might come as a surprise.

The bill’s supporters say, right now, New Mexico sends the wrong message to people who commit serious crimes before turning 18.

“It doesn’t matter the person you have become and the ways you commit yourself to repairing the harm you have caused, but it does matter. It matters that all children, even those that commit serious crimes, are capable of change and redemption,” said Denali Wilson with ACLU New Mexico.

The bill would give these offenders a chance at an earlier release. They could have a hearing 15 years into their sentence, instead of 30 years or more.

The 1994 case of Michael Brown helps illustrate what’s at stake.

At age 16 he received a sentence of life plus 41 ½ years after the state said he orchestrated his grandparents’ murders in Rio Rancho. He’ll be 67 at his earliest chance for release, according to his attorney.

“I just hope that one day I’ll have another chance and life, so that I can do something with my life,” Brown said during his 1995 trial.

 His sister, Shannon Fleeson, hopes that chance comes as soon as possible, though, at first, all those years ago, she was hurt and grieving.

I had nightmares and flashbacks and I spent years and years and years in counseling,” Fleeson told KOB 4 Friday.

She didn’t have a good relationship with her brother right away, but that changed.

“Over the years my brother started to mature and change,” she said. “He’s a remarkable person. He’s definitely not the person he was 27 years ago.” 

Fleeson believes her grandparents would want him to be free.

“It would mean a lot because at this point I don’t believe that keeping him, or even the other two individuals involved, keeping any of them in prison does my grandparents any justice or helps our family heal,” she said.

But many victims don’t feel the same way. The bill has a lot of opposition. A petition, with thousands of signatures, claims letting youthful offenders out early is a danger to the community and would undo the healing of crime survivors.

Many victims, like those in the 2017 Clovis library shooting, can’t imagine the offender getting a second chance so soon.

“I haven’t cried this much since Nathaniel’s been sentenced,” shooting survivor Jessica Thorn said.

Supporters of the bill say that in other states that have similar laws in place to what’s proposed in Senate Bill 247, just 1% of offenders end up back in jail.

Case of Wadsworth teen convicted of murder recounted on national TV

Jonathan Delozier
The Gazette

Mar 22, 2021 7:00 AM

WADSWORTH — The 2018 murder of an elderly Wadsworth resident by her teenage neighbor was detailed Friday in an episode of Oxygen TV network’s “An Unexpected Killer.”

Gavon Ramsay, then 17, murdered 98-year-old Margaret Douglas in the early morning hours of April 6, 2018, sneaking into his neighbor’s home while she slept before strangling her while wearing plastic gloves, sexually assaulting her lifeless body and photographing the heinous acts.

Relatives found Douglas’ body buried under household items in a closet three days later while performing a welfare check. Police found photos and videos of the crime on Ramsay’s cellphone later that month while investigating a separate matter.

Medina County Prosecutor Forrest Thompson appears in the new hourlong episode, which is scheduled to re-air Thursday on Oxygen at 1 a.m. and Friday at 10 a.m.

“I agreed to do this because (Douglas’) family said they wanted to be a part of it,” he said. “I think (Oxygen) did a good job with how the facts were presented and the way the actual show turned out. Accuracy was my primary concern from the outset.”

“The general public had a lot of misunderstandings about how (Ramsay) was identified,” Thompson added. “A lot of those questions were never answer because he plead in instead of going to trial.”

Ramsay, who turns 20 next week, was sentenced by Medina County Court of Common Pleas Judge Joyce Kimbler to life in prison in January 2019 on charges of murder, aggravated murder, kidnapping, gross abuse of a corpse and aggravated burglary. He filed an appeal one month later with the 9th District Court of Appeals, which eventually upheld Kimbler’s decision.

A case appeal on behalf of Ramsay was dismissed by the Ohio Supreme Court on Dec. 31, roughly two weeks after it was filed.

The teen initially pleaded not guilty to charges but later switched to a no contest plea.

“The graphic nature of this case made me a bit worried about how it would be presented on television,” Thompson said. “But I have to say that it’s all been handled with respect and handled very well. I would not have been involved without family member’s permission. I made that clear to the producers from the time they contacted me. The family was on board.”

A frantic effort to locate Douglas is recounted in the new episode, which came to a sudden end when nephew Howard Leasure found her body in the closet.

“I touched (Douglas’ shoe),” Leasure told Oxygen. “It felt cold and clammy. I thought, ‘Oh, my Lord. It’s her.’ I pretty much lost it. It’s something I’ll never forget, to find her like that.”

Other case facts delved into include details of Ramsay’s identification, which started with police investigating what were thought to be unrelated petty crimes in the nearby area. Those included a break-in at a construction site where a cellphone had been left behind.That device was traced back to a friend of Ramsay’s who linked him to all of the recent incidents.

Ramsay reportedly was brought in for questioning where he admitted to the petty crimes and also to a recent carjacking.

Investigators brought up Douglas’ murder during those sessions but Ramsay reportedly denied any involvement. An ensuing search of the teenager’s cellphone garnered horrifying findings — photos and recordings of Douglas taken in her home without her consent.

Ramsay then confessed to the killing, saying he’d strangled Douglas when she woke up but before she realized what he was doing.

Police also found Douglas’ wallet in Ramsay’s bedroom and found one of his gloves inside her home.

Experts testified that Ramsay suffers from numerous disorders including gaining sexual arousal from the suffering of others. The defense and family members also argued the teen’s behavior might have been made worse by taking the prescription antidepressant Zoloft.

During the sentencing hearing, Thompson said life without parole was appropriate for Ramsay. He emphasized Ramsay’s apparent lack of remorse following the murder and pointed to evidence showing the teen had been writing about murder.

State law change could shorten Ramsay’s sentence

Thompson reiterated concerns Sunday regarding a soon-to-be in effect state law change that could drastically reduce Ramsay’s life sentence.

Ohio Senate Bill 256 will grant parole eligibility to individuals convicted of violent crimes, including murder and rape, after serving 25 to 30 years in prison if they committed those crimes before turning 18.

“I’ve spoke to the state Legislature numerous times in opposition to this,” Thompson said. “I don’t agree with it but I have to uphold the law. The people who are pushing this are primarily focusing on the level of brain development of teenagers. They said a person who’s acting this way at 17 isn’t doing that with a fully developed brain.”

Those convicted of aggravated murder as juveniles, such as Ramsay, will be evaluated for parole eligibility after serving 25 years if their offense involved the killing of one person. If two people were killed, parole eligibility will be looked at after 30 years.

SB 256 also create a new crime classification, aggravated homicide offenses, which involves the killing of three or more people and will still be eligible for a juvenile sentence of life without parole.

A new section of Ohio Revised Code states that parole board members must consider factors in the crime related to offenders’ age at the time, which for Ramsay was 17. It goes on to say “hallmark features, including intellectual capacity, immaturity, impetuosity and a failure to appreciate risks and consequences” also will be part of future decision making.

Changes are slated to go into effect April 12.

Ramsay’s appeal effort could make its way back to Medina County under these new provisions some time this year, Thompson said.

“The appeal court could also impart the sentencing changes under 256 but they can also remand it back to the trial court,” Thompson said. “I would anticipate that being this year. The Supreme Court kicked it back to the 9th Circuit and that’s when 256 was passed. We’re going to be seeing the case again.”

Family worries new law paves a road out of prison for convicted killer of 98-year-old woman

Responses to statements made by sponsors can be found here.

New law gets rid of life without parole for teens

By: Scott Noll

CANTON, Ohio — When Cindy Leasure heard the judge sentence her aunt’s killer to life in prison without parole, there was a sense of finality. But three years after Margaret Douglas was strangled to death inside her Wadsworth home, a new Ohio law could pave a way out of prison for Douglas’s convicted killer.

“When he was sentenced it was like okay, we took a criminal off the road, we took him out of society,” said Leasure. “And now you’re looking at here we go. Now he may be back in society at some time.”

Senate Bill 256 goes into effect Monday. It gets rid of life without parole prison sentences for most criminals who were teens when they committed their crimes in Ohio.

It also makes teen offenders eligible for parole after serving between 18 and 30 years in prison, depending on their crimes.

“While SB 256 abolishes discretionary life without parole for juvenile offenders, those juveniles convicted of homicide must serve 25 years before their first parole hearing,” said State Senator Nathan Manning, the primary sponsor of SB 256, in a statement provided to News 5. “In no way does this new law guarantee release for offenders, only an opportunity for parole if they can show that they are truly rehabilitated. The Supreme Court has declared the sentence of juvenile life without parole unconstitutional, thus SB 256 brings Ohio into line with federal law.”

Gavon Ramsay was 17 years old when investigators said he walked into Douglas’s home, strangled her, and abused her body.

Ramsay pleaded no contest to aggravated murder and other charges, and was sentenced in January 2019.

Leasure and her husband, who found his aunt’s body stuffed into a living room closet, were in the courtroom for the sentencing.

“It was just a relief to know that this person could not harm anybody else ever again,” said Leasure.

Now she’s angry the new law could pave a path for Ramsay to someday walk free.

“This is not some poor little juvenile that did something and got punished for life,” said Leasure. “You deserve that. You lost rights when you walked into her house uninvited.”

Former State Senator Peggy Lehner, who co-sponsored the bill, said it’s about giving hope to young people locked up for life.

“I think it gives a purpose to rehabilitation,” said Lehner, a Republican from Montgomery County. “If you’re never going to walk out of the door of a prison, if you’re never going to have a chance to go back to society, or get a job, raise a family, any of those things, there’s not a whole lot of point in doing rehabilitation.”

Under the law, Ramsay would be eligible for parole when he’s 42 years old.

Leasure and her family said they plan to fight for changes that ensure he never walks free again.

“We owe it to Margaret,” said Leasure, “because no one should have to be murdered and go through the horror and torment she went through that night.”

Lehner stressed the new law does not guarantee criminals will be released. She said it only provides them with the opportunity to go before the parole board and make their case for release.

“Over the past two General Assemblies serious efforts have been made toward sentencing reform,” Manning said. “Although, mainly focused on those suffering from addiction, we have also focused on minors involved in serious felonies and how their chance for rehabilitation is more plausible based on their age. This in no way excuses violent offenses, it simply provides a path toward parole for minor offenders after serving a minimum of 25 years.”

Lawmakers prepare to override Hogan’s veto of juvenile justice reform bill

ANNAPOLIS, Md. —

Lawmakers are preparing to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s veto of a juvenile justice reform bill. The measure allows minors to seek a reduction in their sentences after they serve 20 years in prison.

But there is growing concern that if it becomes law, it will have a devastating impact on crime victims and surviving family members.

Those opposed to the bill argue it makes the state less safe, gives violent criminals a chance for early release and future criminals a break on how long they remain behind bars.

“We are left with an empty spot in our hearts. I don’t understand why so much attention has been given to people who have committed the crime and their welfare,” said Debbie Sorrells, the mother of fallen Baltimore County police Officer Amy Caprio.

Debbie and Gary Sorrells are the parents of Caprio, killed in the line of duty in May 2018. Four teens are serving time for the crime. She responded to a report of a suspicious Jeep. As three teens burglarized homes, the Jeep’s 17-year-old driver ran Caprio over when she ordered him to get out of the car.

Hogan vetoed legislation that prohibits the court to sentence minors to life without parole. The measure also allows the teens to seek a reduction in their sentences after serving 20 years in prison.

|| Read the governor’s veto letter here ||

“What is proposed will cause the family and our extended family and all of our friends to have to go back to square one and relive the entire experience. It renews all the original feelings and turmoil and anxieties that were created at the time,” Gary Sorrells said.

The bill provides an opportunity every three years for defendants to ask a judge to modify their sentence. The Caprio family would have to go back to court and relive the tragedy 13 times in 11 years.

“We think this is horrible for the victims, and we feel like it is really important that this veto stay in place and this not become law,” Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger said.

“I cannot imagine having to relieve the worst day of their lives over and over and over again,” Baltimore County Assistant State’s Attorney Zarena Sita said.

“As things mellow out a little bit and you try to get your life back in order again, it just takes everybody back to this dark abyss that occurred for really no good reason,” Sorrells said.

“With every choice, there is a consequence and I truly believe that those who have committed the crime need to have a consequence,” Debbie Sorrells said.

There are enough votes in the House and Senate to override the governor’s veto. So far, nothing has been scheduled. The session ends midnight Monday.

Maryland Governor Vetoes Bill Prohibiting Juvenile Life Sentences

(NOVJM is mentioned in the video segment at the end).

By Brian Witte • Published April 9, 2021

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan announced a pair of vetoes Thursday night, including a measure that would prevent juveniles charged as adults from being sentenced to life in prison without parole and a bill that would expand the state’s prevailing wage law on public works project contracts.

Hogan also announced a number of measures that will go into law without his signature, including bills to make it easier to vote early or by mail.

Measures approved by the General Assembly aimed at improving to the state’s unemployment system also will go into law without Hogan’s signature.

Both measures vetoed by Hogan were passed by the legislature with enough votes for the General Assembly to override the vetoes. Leaders of the legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, expressed confidence the vetoes will be overridden before lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn on Monday.

While the Republican governor said he supports criminal justice reform, he said the bill he vetoed regarding the sentencing of juveniles pertains to “heinous” crimes such as first-degree murder.

“These are serious crimes that require the most serious of consequences, which is why a judge or jury sentences the individual to a lengthy determinate sentence, life imprisonment, or life imprisonment without parole,” Hogan said.

The bill also would enable a court to impose a sentence less than the minimum term required under law, when sentencing a minor convicted as an adult.

The other measure Hogan vetoed would expand the state’s prevailing wage law to include a public work project contract with a value of $250,000 or more, instead of $500,000, or a public work project in which state funds constitute at least 25% of the construction costs instead of at least 50%. In government contracting, a prevailing wage is defined as the hourly wage normally paid to the majority of workers, laborers, and mechanics within a particular area.

Hogan said the bill would cause negative unintended consequences for employers and workers.

“Legislation such as this that arbitrarily inflates cost, impedes participation, and stifles competition — all at a higher price for taxpayers — absolutely is not in the best interest of our state,” Hogan said.

Some of the measures that will become law without the governor’s signature include legislation to increase the number of early voting centers, based on how many registered voters live in jurisdictions. Another measure allows a voter to request permanent absentee-ballot status and creates provisions governing the designation of ballot drop-box locations.

In his veto letter, Hogan wrote that mail-in voting in Maryland was successful in last year’s election and should continue. However, he said the measure “creates a bureaucratic morass of mailings that will inevitably result in ballots being incorrectly mailed to ineligible voters.”

“While I appreciate provisions in the bill trying to scrub ineligible voters from the list and install security cameras at ballot drop boxes, I believe the legislation in its current form may create more problems than it solves,” Hogan wrote.

Maryland bans life sentences for juvenile offenders

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Md. – Juveniles in Maryland can no longer be sentenced to life without parole. The Maryland General Assembly passed the Juvenile Restoration Act Saturday after the House overrode Governor Larry Hogan’s veto.

Under the new bill people sentenced to life without parole as juveniles and have served 20 years or more are eligible to for their sentence to undergo a judiciary view.

State’s Attorney Aisha Braveboy has seen success already doing this in Prince George’s County.

“Sentencing someone who is a juvenile to life is considered in many instances, cruel and unusual punishment. The laws have to reflect a level of compassion and understanding and really an opportunity for these individuals, who were juveniles when they committed their offenses, to have an opportunity for restoration,” Braveboy said.

Over the last few years Braveboy has gotten more than 10 people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles released by proving they’ve turned their lives around in prison.

“For the most part they have taken classes, earned their GED, some have taken college credits. Many have gotten a trade so that they can be employable,” Braveboy said.

But releasing violent offenders early often causes great pain for victim’s families.

“I was horrified. I actually ended up going to seek mental health counseling because I feared for my life,” Gale Seaton said.

Seaton’s 17 year old daughter, Stacey was murdered in 2005 in Bowie. The person convicted of second degree murder in the case served only 10 years in prison. Seaton says she will never forget the day he was released.

“I still fear for my life. People say ‘he’s not going to kill you.’ I said, ‘oh no I don’t think he would but I think he would beat another small drug addicted person or somebody else,” she said.

Seaton says these offenders don’t deserve a second chance.

“You might think it’s unfair but I think it’s unfair that my daughter was murdered. She doesn’t get a second chance,” Seaton said.

People who support the bill say brains aren’t fully developed until people are in their twenties and that children often make bad, impulsive decisions.

“Our system of justice requires us to be balanced and to be fair. Because we are required to be balanced and fair we have to take into consideration an individual’s age and their maturity level,” Braveboy said.

But Seaton doesn’t agree with that argument.

“I’m tired of hearing they’re ‘children’ at the age of 17. Why are we allowing children to drive? Why are we allowing children to hold full time jobs and go to college at 17? And go into the military at 17 but not hold them accountable?” Seaton said. “Yes people lose control at times. I understand that. And they get themselves into situations. I’m not unsympathetic but if you’re going to go as far as murdering someone and act like an adult then you have to expect to be treated like and adult,” she added.

Braveboy makes it clear that these people will still serve a significant amount of time but says they should be allowed to redeem themselves. She says many of the people she released from prison have become positive influences in the community.

“Redemption I believe is real. I’ve seen it and so there has to be room within the criminal justice system for redemption,” she said.

According to the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth the rate of released juveniles becoming repeat offenders is just over 1%. 

Maryland is the 25th state to ban juvenile life sentences without parole.

The passing of this act makes 415 people in the state eligible for sentencing review.

In a statement the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murders said, NOVJM sought to get this legislation amended due to our concerns with the excessive number of hearings it allows for juvenile offenders. The legislation entitles all juvenile offenders to parole eligibility and three judicial reviews… NOVJM simply wanted the bills to be amended so that victims would endure fewer re-traumatizing hearings. That was not done. We don’t understand why Maryland lawmakers were unwilling to limit the amount of revictimization. Maryland lawmakers have placed the freedom of violent felons, such as rapist serial killer Alexander Watson and arsonist murderer Benjamin Garris above the rights of victims.”

Family of slain woman fights to keep killer behind bars for life

Jonathan Delozier
The GazetteApr 13, 2021 6:00 AM

WADSWORTH — A new state bill that took effect Monday could lead to a reduced prison term for Gavon Ramsay, who while a juvenile murdered an elderly Wadsworth neighbor before abusing her dead body.

Ohio Senate Bill 256 grants parole eligibility to individuals convicted of violent crimes, including murder and rape, after serving 18 to 30 years in prison if they committed those crimes before turning 18.

Ramsay was found guilty in November 2018 for the murder of 98-year-old Margaret Douglas, which took place in April of that year and included sexual assault and strangulation, according to investigators and court testimony.

Douglas’ great-niece, Patricia Sacco of Michigan, said Monday that her family plans to take part in formal opposition to SB 256.

“There’s been this real feeling of fear and nervousness since we heard about this bill and especially since it was approved,” she said. “After the bill passed and I looked into it more my other strong feeling is anger in how this bill could allow someone like Gavon Ramsay to slip through the cracks.”

“It puts all of these juvenile criminals into one box whether they were being reckless and shooting a gun that happens to kill someone or if they’re committing these devious, plotting crimes like (Ramsay) did,” Sacco added. “There’s a lot of anger at this point because of this.”

A new section of Ohio Revised Code states that parole board members must consider factors in the crime related to offenders’ age at the time, which for Ramsay was 17. Those convicted of aggravated murder as juveniles, such as Ramsay, will be evaluated for parole eligibility after serving 25 years if their offense involved the killing of one person. If two people were killed, parole eligibility will be looked at after 30 years.

SB 256 also creates a new crime classification, aggravated homicide offenses, which involves the killing of three or more people and will remain eligible for a juvenile sentence of life without parole. The new bill goes on to say “hallmark features, including intellectual capacity, immaturity, impetuosity, and a failure to appreciate risks and consequences” will be part of future decision making.

“At this point, our main conversation about this is trying to come up with an action plan,” Sacco said. “As a family, we’re talking about what we can do to bring attention to this and stop (Ramsay) from being released. We feel the lack of awareness of the crimes he committed that night, on the part of people in Columbus, is part of the reason this bill got passed the way it did.”

Twenty-three states as well as Washington, D.C. have banned life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles since a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling abolishing mandatory life sentences for that age group.

State Sen. Nathan Manning, R-North Ridgeville, is the primary sponsor of SB 256, which in December passed both Ohio General Assembly chambers by overwhelming bipartisan margins.

“I certainly understand where victims families are coming from,” Manning said Monday. “Promoting justice reform isn’t an easy thing and there’s a lot of difficult decisions we have to make as policy makers. Quite frankly, there are a lot of people who are supportive of these changes in Ohio and all over the country. I know that doesn’t make a victim’s family feel better.

“If someone has not shown that they’re remorseful and rehabilitated they won’t be released,” he added. “This bill was looking at many of those cases where people have changed and turned their lives around, became good model prisoners and done everything right. They made a mistake when they were juveniles and were sentenced as adults.”

Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association Executive Director Louis Tobin led that organization in fierce opposition to passage of SB 256. He and colleagues would like to see two key changes to its language: restoration of discretionary life sentences without parole and parole eligibility after no more than 30 years or 80 percent of the sentence for homicide offenders not handed discretionary life sentences.

“SB 256 makes non-homicide offenders eligible (for parole) after 18 years regardless of the number of non-homicide offenses committed,” Tobin said. “That can mean one, two or even five rape offenses just to give an example. But it can mean any violent crime. The number doesn’t matter.”

He said that messaging regarding U.S. Supreme Court opinion on juvenile life sentences without parole often needs more nuance.

“There were arguments made last year that SB 256 was required by Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court precedent and that’s just not true,” Tobin said. “The U.S. Supreme Court has said you can’t impose mandatory life without parole sentences on juveniles. It didn’t say you can’t ever impose life without parole, just that the judge has to consider factors of youth before they do it. Gavon Ramsay was a discretionary life sentence, which does not go against the Supreme Court.”

Relatives found the body of 98-year-old Margaret Douglas on April 9, 2018, inside the closet of her Wadsworth home while performing a welfare check. It is believed Ramsay killed her in the early morning hours of April 6, breaking into the home, strangling her while wearing plastic gloves, and sexually assaulting her body while photographing the act.

Later that month, police found photos and videos of the crime on Ramsay’s cellphone while investigating a series of local petty crimes.

Ramsay, who just turned 20, filed an appeal in February 2019 with the 9th District Court of Appeals roughly one month after his discretionary life sentence was handed down by Medina County Common Pleas Court Judge Joyce Kimbler. The appellate court affirmed on March 31 the sentence against Ramsay on charges of murder, aggravated murder, kidnapping, gross abuse of a corpse and aggravated burglary.

The teen initially pleaded not guilty to charges but later switched to a no-contest plea.

The Ohio Supreme Court announced Dec. 31 it had dismissed an appeal attempt on Ramsay’s behalf, which came after the 9th District Court of Appeals decided to uphold his life sentence last April.

It’s believed Douglas was asleep on her couch when Ramsay attacked. Video footage from Ramsay’s phone suggested that he entered the home without Douglas’ knowledge and secretly watched her before taking her life. Police also found Douglas’ wallet in Ramsay’s bedroom and found one of his gloves inside her home.

Experts testified that Ramsay suffers from numerous disorders including gaining sexual arousal from the suffering of others, adding that the prescription antidepressant Zoloft may have contributed to the teen’s behavior.

During the sentencing hearing, Medina County Prosecutor Forrest Thompson said life without parole was appropriate for Ramsay, emphasizing a perceived lack of remorse and premeditation for murder.

Thompson said in March that he expects new state law changes to bring Ramsay’s case back to Medina County as soon as this year.

Local prosecutor uses Jacob LaRosa as example of folly with new Ohio law

LOCAL NEWS

Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins says the law nullifies the hard work and judgment of judges throughout the state

WARREN, Ohio (WKBN) – Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins is not happy about a new law in Ohio that eliminates a sentence of life without parole for the vast majority of juvenile offenders.

Senate Bill 256 went into effect on April 12. The bill also creates new wide-ranging parole eligibility, Watkins said, that applies regardless of when a juvenile committed their offenses and regardless of when they were sentenced.

Watkins said the Trumbull County Prosecutor’s Office fought against the changes, citing the life without parole sentence for Jacob LaRosa.

LaRosa was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of 94-year-old Marie Belcastro in Niles.

Watkins said that LaRosa’s sentencing came after hundreds of hours of hard work by the Niles Police Department, the Ohio Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Judge Sandra Harwood, Judge Wyatt W. McKay and Assistant Prosecutors Gabe Wildman and Chris Becker.

“Additionally, Jacob LaRosa’s sentence was upheld by the Eleventh District Court of Appeals,” Watkins said.

Watkins said that while the life without parole sentence was “perfectly legal” under the Ohio and United States Supreme courts, the Ohio legislature has now eliminated the possibility for many juvenile offenders, “even some of the worst offenders.”

“The impact of this unnecessary change is that juvenile murderers such as Jacob LaRosa will now be eligible for parole and possibly released back into the community in their 30s and 40s,” Watkins said.

Watkins says the law nullifies the hard work and judgment of judges throughout the state who have determined that life without parole sentences were necessary to protect the public from these offenders.

“This office will continue to vigorously oppose Jacob LaRosa’s release and take all necessary steps, including any potential appeals if warranted, to ensure Jacob LaRosa serves the maximum sentence permissible,” Watkins said.

Prosecutor uses LaRosa murder case as example for juvenile sentencing changes

The Trumbull County Prosecutor’s Office says juvenile murderers such as Jacob LaRosa will now be eligible for parole in their 30’s and 40’s.

The Trumbull County Prosecutor’s Office released a statement against Sub. S.B. 256, which eliminates life-without-parole sentencing for juvenile offenders.

According to the release, the law went into effect April 10th and created new parole eligibility provisions for those who committed offenses under the age of 18.

The Trumbull County Prosecutor’s Office says they fought against the changes along with the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

They say the change could result in some of the worst offenders being parole eligible and being released back into their communities.

The release includes a local connection to the changes.

The Trumbull County Prosecutor’s Office says juvenile murderers such as Jacob LaRosa will now be eligible for parole in their 30’s and 40’s.

LaRosa was convicted for the murder of 94-year-old Marie Belcastro in her Niles home in 2015.

The release says LaRosa, who was 15 at the time, beat Belcastro with a flashlight severely, leaving damage that left her brain visible through holes in her skull.

S.B. 256 would nullify the life-without-parole sentence, making it a possibility that he could be released in the future.

The Prosecutor’s Office says LaRosa does not deserve a lighter sentence as given by the retroactive legislation. Officials say they will continue to fight to keep violent criminals incarcerated for as long as possible as the legislature provides in their laws.

New OH law opens up parole for juvenile murderers

Family members of those who were murdered are calling Senate bill 256 ‘a cruel slap in the face.’ The family of Marie Belcastro is upset with a new Ohio law that took effect Monday that says juveniles who were given sentences of “life in prison,” like Bel

By Matt Stone

Family members of those who were murdered are calling Senate bill 256 ‘a cruel slap in the face.’

The family of Marie Belcastro is upset with a new Ohio law that took effect Monday that says juveniles who were given sentences of “life in prison,” like Belcastro’s assailant Jacob Larosa, can now be given a chance for parole.

21 News spoke with Brian Kirk, the grandson of Belcastro Friday who said this new law has upended the life of his family.

“They are punishing the survivors and the victim’s family, friends and loved ones!” said Kirk.

Marie Rose Belcastro, 94,  was brutally murdered in her Niles home on March 31st 2015.
A then 15 year old Jacob Larosa was found guilty of that murder and sentenced to life plus 31 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

As of Monday that has changed. The new law will allow Larosa to be eligible for parole.

Kirk says the family had closure and relief when the sentence was handed down. Now that closure is gone.

“What if Jacob holds a grudge against me or my family?  Maybe we are potential targets down the road. I don’t know because it wasn’t something I had to even consider. Now it’s something I’ll be thinking about every single day,” said Kirk.

Kirk hopes the public will see what has been done and demand the new law be changed whether through a lawsuit or through a referendum.

“To put convicted criminal rights above innocent surviving victims and potential future victims is upside down world insane,” added Kirk.

This new law has also affected a trial currently underway in Mahoning County.

Brandon Crump Jr. is accused of the murder of 4 year old Rowan Sweeney.
Prosecutor Paul Gains tells 21 News he’s furious that if Crump is found guilty, he would be eligible for parole instead of staying in prison.

Family of 98-year-old Wadsworth woman killed, abused by 17-year-old fears new law could eventually set him free

By Jim Nelson| April 16, 2021 at 10:54 PM EDT – Updated April 16 at 10:54 PM

WADSWORTH, Ohio (WOIO) – The family of an elderly Wadsworth woman who was brutally killed by a 17-year-old is now facing the agonizing fear that one day the killer could walk free.

In 2018, Gavon Ramsay was sentenced to life in prison without parole for strangling and sexually abusing the corpse of 98-year-old Margaret Douglas.

“We were devastated to find out how she died, what happened to her,” said Douglas’ nephew Howard Leasure. “It’s been pretty rough.”

Those memories are coming back in the wake of a new Ohio law that went into effect earlier this month.

Senate Bill 256 allows for violent convicted felons to be eligible for parole 25 to 30 years into their life sentences if the crimes were committed when they were under the age of 18.

Leasure’s daughter, Patty Sacco, has become passionate about speaking out against the law.

Her primary concern is that a parole board wouldn’t need to consider the horrific details of the crime but rather the charges alone.

“It takes out of account the fact he broke into her home, that he strangled her, punched her in the face, disrobed her, and sexually assaulted her dead body,” she told 19 News. “My passion is getting the appropriate justice for Margaret. Making sure what she went through that night is acknowledged.”

Under the current law, Ramsay wouldn’t be eligible for parole for more than 20 years.

He would be in his early-to-mid 40′s.

“My fear is that he’ll hurt someone again,” said Howard’s wife, Cindy. “He will murder someone and torment someone again.”

“And all the family members will have to go through what we went through,” Howard added.

Juvenile offenders avoid life in prison

Ban affects earlier sentences

Juveniles in Ohio can no longer be sentenced to life in prison without parole, in most cases.

Ohio joined 23 other states with similar bans a week ago, and appears to be part of a national movement to give juvenile offenders a second chance.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 banned the death penalty for offenders who committed their crimes as a juvenile, and in 2010 the court banned life in prison without parole for all juvenile offenders except those who committed homicide.

That decision and one from the Ohio Supreme Court in 2016 reversing the 112-year prison sentence Youngstown teen Brandon Moore received for brutal rapes were cited as reasons some Ohio legislators changed Ohio’s law last week.

Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains said he doesn’t agree with the change “because these are really the most heinous offenses. But obviously we will comply with the law.”

Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins said his office “fought against these changes, along with the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and other prosecutors across the state.”

The new law leaves a narrow group of juvenile offenders who could still get life in prison without parole, said Ralph Rivera, assistant Mahoning County prosecutor. They are individuals who kill at least three people, such as T.J. Lane, who killed three people and injured others at Chardon High School in 2012.

But the new law also has changes that affect juvenile offenders who were sentenced previously. It gives them a chance at parole much sooner than they would have had otherwise. It does not, however, guarantee anyone will be released earlier than the the sentence handed down by the judge.

“The only thing guaranteed is that opportunity to obtain release, which is the parole hearing,” Rivera said. “All of the offenders can serve out their entire sentence if the parole board denies them.”

After the first hearing, the parole board must hold additional hearings within five years.

SHOCKING CASES

Among those who will be affected are Moore and his Youngstown co-defendant, Chaz Bunch; and Trumbull County killer Jacob Larosa.

Moore and Bunch kidnapped a woman from the parking area of her job on Detroit Avenue in Youngstown, then took her to the Peyatt Street area, where she was repeatedly raped.

LaRosa beat and killed Marie Belcastro, 94, in her Cherry Street home in Niles and pleaded no contest to aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and attempted rape.

In the Youngstown case, Moore, 15, and Bunch, 16, got prison sentences so long, they would not have left prison in their lifetimes. Larosa, 15, of Niles was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

But the 2016 Ohio Supreme Court case struck down Moore’s sentence. Moore, now 37, and Bunch, now 36, were resentenced a few years ago in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to about 50 years each.

Under the new law, defendants convicted of offenses as a juvenile are now eligible for parole after 18, 25 or 30 years in prison.

Rivera said Ohio’s new law makes Moore and Bunch eligible for a parole hearing after serving 18 years in prison. Both have served slightly more than 18 years, meaning that when the Ohio Parole Board is able to schedule a hearing, they can argue for their freedom.

The Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office will have the opportunity to argue against their release, Rivera said, adding: “Nothing prevents the juvenile from serving out the entire sentence given out by the trial court.”

LAROSA

A person such as Larosa, convicted of killing one person, is eligible under Ohio’s new law for a parole hearing after serving 25 years in prison, Rivera said. Larosa, now 22, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in October 2018.

“If the juvenile offender committed one homicide offense — murder or aggravated murder, manslaughter or reckless homicide — they would be eligible automatically after serving 25 years,” Rivera said.

A person who is the primary offender and kills two people as a juvenile would be eligible for a parole hearing after 30 years, Rivera said.

Watkins called the new Ohio law “unnecessary,” saying it will allow Larosa and others in his situation to be “parole eligible and possibly released back into the community in their 30s and 40s.”

He said the new law “nullifies the hard work and judgments of judges throughout the state who have previously, in their discretion and after careful consideration of the facts and background of juvenile offenders such as Larosa, determined that life without parole sentences were necessary to protect the public from these offenders.”

BARNETTE AND GOINS

Another Mahoning County case involves Chad Barnette and James Goins, who were both 16 when they caused mayhem in their Youngstown neighborhood in January 2001 by attacking an 84-year-old man who had gone out to get his newspaper. The victim suffered spinal cord contusion, fractured vertebrae, a concussion, punctured lung and broken ribs.

Later that night, they kicked their way into the home of a man, 64, who was nearly wheelchair-bound and his wife. They had a sawed-off shotgun and beat the couple. Barnette and Goins were each convicted of attempted aggravated murder, and multiple counts of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping and felonious assault, and each was sentenced to about 80 years in prison.

Under the new sentencing law, each is eligible for a parole hearing after serving 18 years, Rivera said. Both were sentenced in March 2002, meaning they have served just over 18 years already. Eighteen years is the start of parole eligibility for juvenile offenders who commit non-homicide offenses, Rivera said.

Rivera said it may seem unfair that Bunch, Moore, Barnette and Goins are eligible for parole after 18 years when someone who committed lesser offenses — but got 20 years in prison — will have the same parole eligibility as these four.

“It essentially puts all juveniles on the same footing regardless of how horrific of an offense that they committed,” he said.

Earlier sentences affected by life ban

Juvenile convicts have chance to seek parole

Juveniles in Ohio no longer can be sentenced to life in prison without parole, in most cases.

Ohio joined 23 other states with similar bans a week ago, and appears to be part of a national movement to give juvenile offenders a second chance.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 banned the death penalty for offenders who committed their crimes as a juvenile, and in 2010 the court banned life in prison without parole for all juvenile offenders except those who committed homicide.

That decision and one from the Ohio Supreme Court in 2016 reversing the 112-year prison sentence Youngstown teen Brandon Moore received for brutal rapes were cited as reasons some Ohio legislators changed Ohio’s law last week.

Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains said he doesn’t agree with the change “because these are really the most heinous offenses. But obviously we will comply with the law.”

Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins said his office “fought against these changes, along with the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and other prosecutors across the state.”

The new law leaves a narrow group of juvenile offenders who could still get life in prison without parole, said Ralph Rivera, assistant Mahoning County prosecutor. They are individuals who kill at least three people, such as T.J. Lane, who killed three people and injured others at Chardon High School in 2012.

But the new law also has changes that affect juvenile offenders who were sentenced previously. It gives them a chance at parole much sooner than they would have had otherwise. It does not, however, guarantee anyone will be released earlier than the sentence handed down by the judge.

“The only thing guaranteed is that opportunity to obtain release, which is the parole hearing,” Rivera said. “All of the offenders can serve out their entire sentence if the parole board denies them.”

After the first hearing, the parole board must hold additional hearings within five years.

SHOCKING CASES

Among those who will be affected are Moore and his Youngstown co-defendant, Chaz Bunch; and Trumbull County killer Jacob LaRosa.

Moore and Bunch kidnapped a woman from the parking area of her job on Detroit Avenue in Youngstown, then took her to the Peyatt Street area, where she repeatedly was raped.

LaRosa beat and killed Marie Belcastro, 94, in her Cherry Street home in Niles and pleaded no contest to aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and attempted rape.

In the Youngstown case, Moore, 15, and Bunch, 16, got prison sentences so long they would not have left prison in their lifetimes. LaRosa, 15, of Niles was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

But the 2016 Ohio Supreme Court case struck down Moore’s sentence. Moore, now 37, and Bunch, now 36, were resentenced a few years ago in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to about 50 years each.

Under the new law, defendants convicted of offenses as a juvenile now are eligible for parole after 18, 25 or 30 years in prison.

Rivera said Ohio’s new law makes Moore and Bunch eligible for a parole hearing after serving 18 years in prison. Both have served slightly more than 18 years, meaning when the Ohio Parole Board is able to schedule a hearing, they can argue for their freedom.

The Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office will have the opportunity to argue against their release, Rivera said, adding: “Nothing prevents the juvenile from serving out the entire sentence given out by the trial court.”

LaRosa

A person such as LaRosa, convicted of killing one person, is eligible under Ohio’s new law for a parole hearing after serving 25 years in prison, Rivera said. LaRosa, now 22, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in October 2018.

“If the juvenile offender committed one homicide offense — murder or aggravated murder, manslaughter or reckless homicide — they would be eligible automatically after serving 25 years,” Rivera said.

A person who is the primary offender and kills two people as a juvenile would be eligible for a parole hearing after 30 years, Rivera said.

Watkins called the new Ohio law “unnecessary,” saying it will allow LaRosa and others in his situation to be “parole eligible and possibly released back into the community in their 30s and 40s.”

He said the new law “nullifies the hard work and judgments of judges throughout the state who have previously, in their discretion and after careful consideration of the facts and background of juvenile offenders such as LaRosa, determined that life without parole sentences were necessary to protect the public from these offenders.”

BARNETTE AND GOINS

Another Mahoning County case involves Chad Barnette and James Goins, who were both 16 when they caused mayhem in their Youngstown neighborhood in January 2001 by attacking an 84-year-old man who had gone out to get his newspaper. The victim suffered spinal cord contusion, fractured vertebrae, a concussion, punctured lung and broken ribs.

Later that night, they kicked their way into the home of a man, 64, who was nearly wheelchair-bound and his wife. They had a sawed-off shotgun and beat the couple. Barnette and Goins were each convicted of attempted aggravated murder, and multiple counts of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping and felonious assault, and each was sentenced to about 80 years in prison.

Under the new sentencing law, each is eligible for a parole hearing after serving 18 years, Rivera said. Both were sentenced in March 2002, meaning they have served just over 18 years already. Eighteen years is the start of parole eligibility for juvenile offenders who commit non-homicide offenses, Rivera said.

Rivera said it may seem unfair that Bunch, Moore, Barnette and Goins are eligible for parole after 18 years when someone who committed lesser offenses — but got 20 years in prison — will have the same parole eligibility as these four.“It essentially puts all juveniles on the same footing regardless of how horrific of an offense that they committed,” he said.

‘Violation of trust’ 

Grandson assails passage of ‘Teenage Killer Protection Act’ 

The grandson of the 94-year-old victim of convicted murderer Jacob LaRosa blames Ohio’s elected officials for giving the killer a chance for freedom in 19 years — and then every five years after that.

“We owe this miscarriage of justice to a Republican governor and legislature,” said Brian Kirk, who questioned how this new state law could happen in a place known for its tough-on-crime, common-sense approach to governing.

LaRosa was sentenced to life without parole plus 31 years in 2018 after pleading guilty to a host of crimes surrounding the 2015 brutal slaying of Marie Belcastro at her Niles home.

“If you’re familiar with my grandmother’s death you know that Marie was still living in her own home, independently, 94 years young. She was as excited as ever about her church and prayer groups, her family and friends, and her cooking. She also developed a love for fly-fishing at age 90, which she continued to nurture,” Kirk said in a prepared statement.

“My grandmother was full of energy, love, laughter and light, and showed no signs of slowing down. Anyone who ever met her instantly fell in love. She was quick with a joke, even quicker with a laugh. I thought for sure she’d live to 100.”

On March 31, 2015, that life ended in the home Belcastro’s father built. The perpetrator was then-15-year-old LaRosa. So horrifying were LaRosa’s crimes, including attempted rape, that Judge Wyatt McKay gave him the extraordinary sentence for the teen who was charged as an adult.

In his sentencing judgment, McKay wrote: “Defendant murdered a frail 94-year-old woman who was known to be kind to him. There was no known motive for the crime. Defendant brutally beat the victim repeatedly with a Mag flashlight.”

LaRosa’s long journey to convicted felon took three-and-a-half years, methodically winding its way first through the juvenile court system, then ultimately to the second-floor courtroom in downtown Warren.

“Our family left the courthouse that day of sentencing in October 2018 with a deep sense of gratitude for the people of Trumbull County, especially (assistant) Prosecutor Chris Becker and the Niles Police Department,” Kirk stated.

Sadly, Kirk noted, Ohio’s legislature and governor undid much of the successful prosecution of LaRosa.

With the signing of Senate Bill 256 earlier this month, the elected officials decreed just about anybody in prison for life who committed murder as a juvenile must be given a chance at parole.

“The law applies retroactively, which makes zero sense,” said Kirk, who said the legislation should have been named the “Teenage Killer Protection Act.”

WRITING THE GOVERNOR

Kirk, who now lives in Boynton Beach, Fla., said he wrote Gov. Mike DeWine, protesting his signing of Senate Bill 256 into law in early January.

“Sir, this law is tough on victims! I’m exhausted. I’m angry. But I’ve already made some friends who are committed to this fight. I will get through this because I will dedicate my life to overturning this massive injustice. Can you help us?” Kirk wrote.

Kirk told DeWine his options include a lawsuit, constitutional amendment or replacement legislation, as he talks about targeted social media campaigns to state legislators.

Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins vowed to do everything he can to keep LaRosa behind bars for the maximum sentence possible.

“This office will continue to vigorously oppose Jacob LaRosa’s release and take all necessary steps, including any potential appeals if warranted, to ensure Jacob LaRosa serves the maximum sentence permissible,” Watkins said.

“Before we had closure, backed up by steel bars and armed guards,” he said.

Kirk said this law is a violation of the trust all Ohioans are asked to put in the judicial system.

“A better use of the legislature’s time would have been to find a way to better punish and track juveniles when they escape from a detention facility, as LaRosa once did,” Kirk stated. “Or they could have reformed domestic violence laws so that when a juvenile puts a sibling in the hospital, as LaRosa once did, he can face real justice.”

OTHER VOICES

State Rep. Michael J. O’Brien and former Rep. Gil Blair, both Valley Democrats, voted against the legislation during the lame-duck 2020 session after the election.

O’Brien said Kirk’s cause will be helped by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision Thursday against new restrictions on juvenile sentencing. O’Brien said that action may be the constitutional solution, but it is not enough, and he will be meeting with the state prosecutor’s association to find a legislation solution.

“This is unfair for the victims in this case that LaRosa would be eligible for parole in 2043,” O’Brien said.

Watkins also recognized the new law wiped out prosecution efforts to protect the public.

“This law not only changes and overrides Ohio’s historical, proper and warranted sentencing scheme giving Ohio common pleas judges wide discretion in decision-making for the most serious juvenile offenders, but because of its retroactivity, nullifies the hard work and judgments of judges throughout the state who have previously, in their discretion and after careful consideration of the facts and background of juvenile offenders such as LaRosa, determined that life without parole sentences were necessary to protect the public from these offenders,” Watkins stated.

Also speaking against the new law is the Ohio director and national legislative director of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers. In a statement shortly after the passage of S.B. 256, she wrote: “Once again, victims have been significantly harmed. SB 256 is a dangerous bill that passed due to recklessness and gross negligence on the part of politicians and lies and propaganda on the part of activists. 256 will directly lead to violent crime. The writing is on the wall and that writing is in blood.”

But the new law also has some supporters.

Kenza Kamal, policy director at the Juvenile Justice Coalition of Ohio, applauded the legislature for ending the “cruel” practice of sentencing juveniles to life without parole.

“For years, we have known that extreme punishment for young people is harmful to their growth and the future of our communities. Ohio spends millions of dollars confining and incarcerating young people, denying their humanity and dignity, rather than empowering them and investing in their communities and schools,” Kamal stated.

But Kirk also applauds the recent high court decision, saying past actions by that body had been the excuse for Ohio Republicans and others to allow paroles for juvenile killers.

“Supporters say S.B. 256 is about rehabilitation. I believe in a God who does give second and more chances. My grandmother was a woman of deep faith, and I know she’d share that good news with LaRosa if she could,” Kirk said. “God can and does forgive. I can forgive. But this wonderful fact does not absolve LaRosa of the consequences for his actions. Only God (and S.B. 256 apparently) can do that.”

Murder victim’s grandson blasts law giving killers chance at freedom

NEWS

APR 26, 2021

GUY VOGRIN

Reporter

[email protected]

The grandson of the 94-year-old victim of convicted murderer Jacob LaRosa blames Ohio’s elected officials for giving the killer a chance for freedom in 19 years — and then every five years after that.

“We owe this miscarriage of justice to a Republican governor and Legislature,” said Brian Kirk, who questioned how this new state law could happen in a place known for its tough-on-crime, common-sense approach to governing.

LaRosa was sentenced to life without parole plus 31 years in 2018 after pleading guilty to a host of crimes surrounding the 2015 brutal slaying of Marie Belcastro at her Niles home.

“If you’re familiar with my grandmother’s death, you know that Marie was still living in her own home, independently, 94 years young. She was as excited as ever about her church and prayer groups, her family and friends, and her cooking. She also developed a love for fly-fishing at age 90, which she continued to nurture,” Kirk said in a prepared statement.

“My grandmother was full of energy, love, laughter and light, and showed no signs of slowing down. Anyone who ever met her instantly fell in love. She was quick with a joke, even quicker with a laugh. I thought for sure she’d live to 100.”

On March 31, 2015, that life ended in the home Belcastro’s father built. The perpetrator was then-15-year-old LaRosa. So horrifying were LaRosa’s crimes, including attempted rape, that Judge Wyatt McKay gave him the extraordinary sentence for the teen who was charged as an adult.

In his sentencing judgment, McKay wrote: “Defendant murdered a frail 94-year-old woman who was known to be kind to him. There was no known motive for the crime. Defendant brutally beat the victim repeatedly with a Mag flashlight.”

LaRosa’s long journey to convicted felon took three-and-a-half years, methodically winding its way first through the juvenile court system, then ultimately to the second-floor courtroom in downtown Warren.

“Our family left the courthouse that day of sentencing in October 2018 with a deep sense of gratitude for the people of Trumbull County, especially (assistant) Prosecutor Chris Becker and the Niles Police Department,” Kirk stated.

Sadly, Kirk noted, Ohio’s legislature and governor undid much of the successful prosecution of LaRosa.

With the signing of Senate Bill 256 earlier this month, the elected officials decreed just about anybody in prison for life who committed murder as a juvenile must be given a chance at parole.

“The law applies retroactively, which makes zero sense,” said Kirk, who said the legislation should have been named the “Teenage Killer Protection Act.”

WRITING THE GOVERNOR

Kirk, who now lives in Boynton Beach, Fla., said he wrote Gov. Mike DeWine, protesting his signing of Senate Bill 256 into law in early January.

“Sir, this law is tough on victims! I’m exhausted. I’m angry. But I’ve already made some friends who are committed to this fight. I will get through this because I will dedicate my life to overturning this massive injustice. Can you help us?” Kirk wrote.

Kirk told DeWine his options include a lawsuit, constitutional amendment or replacement legislation, as he talks about targeted social media campaigns to state legislators.

Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins vowed to do everything he can to keep LaRosa behind bars for the maximum sentence possible.

“This office will continue to vigorously oppose Jacob LaRosa’s release and take all necessary steps, including any potential appeals if warranted, to ensure Jacob LaRosa serves the maximum sentence permissible,” Watkins said.

“Before we had closure, backed up by steel bars and armed guards,” he said.

Kirk said this law is a violation of the trust all Ohioans are asked to put in the judicial system.

“A better use of the legislature’s time would have been to find a way to better punish and track juveniles when they escape from a detention facility, as LaRosa once did,” Kirk stated. “Or they could have reformed domestic violence laws so that when a juvenile puts a sibling in the hospital, as LaRosa once did, he can face real justice.”

OTHER VOICES

State Rep. Michael J. O’Brien and former Rep. Gil Blair, both Valley Democrats, voted against the legislation during the lame-duck 2020 session after the election.

O’Brien said Kirk’s cause will be helped by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision Thursday against new restrictions on juvenile sentencing. O’Brien said that action may be the constitutional solution, but it is not enough, and he will be meeting with the state prosecutor’s association to find a legislation solution.

“This is unfair for the victims in this case that LaRosa would be eligible for parole in 2043,” O’Brien said.

Watkins also recognized the new law wiped out prosecution efforts to protect the public.

“This law not only changes and overrides Ohio’s historical, proper and warranted sentencing scheme giving Ohio common pleas judges wide discretion in decision-making for the most serious juvenile offenders, but because of its retroactivity, nullifies the hard work and judgments of judges throughout the state who have previously, in their discretion and after careful consideration of the facts and background of juvenile offenders such as LaRosa, determined that life without parole sentences were necessary to protect the public from these offenders,” Watkins stated.

Also speaking against the new law is the Ohio director of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Murderers. In a statement shortly after the passage of S.B. 256, she wrote: “Once again, victims have been significantly harmed. SB 256 is a dangerous bill that passed due to recklessness and gross negligence on the part of politicians and lies and propaganda on the part of activists. 256 will directly lead to violent crime. The writing is on the wall and that writing is in blood.”

But the new law also has some supporters.

Kenza Kamal, policy director at the Juvenile Justice Coalition of Ohio, applauded the legislature for ending the “cruel” practice of sentencing juveniles to life without parole.

“For years, we have known that extreme punishment for young people is harmful to their growth and the future of our communities. Ohio spends millions of dollars confining and incarcerating young people, denying their humanity and dignity, rather than empowering them and investing in their communities and schools,” Kamal stated.

But Kirk also applauds the recent SCOTUS decision, saying past actions by that body had been the excuse for Ohio Republicans and others to allow paroles for juvenile killers.

“Supporters say S.B. 256 is about rehabilitation. I believe in a God who does give second and more chances. My grandmother was a woman of deep faith, and I know she’d share that good news with LaRosa if she could,” Kirk said. “God can and does forgive. I can forgive. But this wonderful fact does not absolve LaRosa of the consequences for his actions. Only God (and S.B. 256 apparently) can do that.”

[email protected]