Latest news with #SenateBill74
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Effort blocked to move more Louisiana teenagers from juvenile to adult courts
A Louisiana Senate committee blocked legislation backed by Attorney General Liz Murrill that could have moved thousands of cases from juvenile to adult court. (Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) After outcry from several corners of the legal community, Louisiana lawmakers scuttled a controversial proposal backed by Attorney General Liz Murrill that could have moved thousands of criminal cases involving children and teenagers from juvenile to adult courts every year. The Louisiana Senate Finance Committee voted 6-5 Monday to reject Senate Bill 74 by Sen. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport. The committee's decision came a few weeks after state voters overwhelmingly rejected a similar constitutional amendment. The legislation would have mostly affected Orleans, Jefferson, East Baton Rouge and Caddo parishes, where juvenile courts operate separately from district courts. Larry Frieman, chief deputy attorney general, told senators the bill was crafted specifically to address New Orleans juvenile court judges who are too lenient on the teens and children who come before them. 'They are one of the ones that have created this problem that we are trying to fix,' Frieman said. Pushback for the bill came from a wide swath of people involved in the criminal justice system who often aren't aligned with each other. District attorneys, public defenders, judges and anti-incarceration groups all spoke out against the proposal. 'The logistics of it are not as simple as everyone seems to think,' said Kyla Romanach, chief public defender for East Baton Rouge Parish, who opposed the legislation. Had it been approved, the bill would have allowed district attorneys and the attorney general to transfer 15- and 16-year-olds accused of felony crimes from juvenile courts to state district courts that mostly handle adult cases. District attorneys and the attorney general also would have gained the ability to move cases involving children under 15 accused of any crime, misdemeanor or felony, from juvenile courts to city and parish courts that focus on adult cases. District attorneys can already move 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds into the adult criminal justice system, but only when they are accused of the most serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter and rape. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE The Louisiana Legislature also passed a statute last year that reclassifies all 17-year-olds as adults in the eyes of the criminal justice system. They are automatically tried in adult court and face adult prison sentences. The attorney general's failed legislation would have further blurred the lines between punishments for adults and minors in Louisiana, though the additional children and teenagers transferred from juvenile to adult courts under the bill would have been subjected to juvenile law standards, Frieman said. Judges, prosecutors and public defenders from the four parishes with juvenile courts indicated the attorney general's proposal would cost their courthouses and offices hundreds of thousands of dollars each. District attorneys and public defenders from East Baton Rouge, Jefferson and Caddo all said they would have to hire more staff to track cases in juvenile and district court if the legislation had been approved. Federal and state law also require minors to be separated from adult detainees. District courthouses in the four affected parishes don't have the appropriate accommodations for minors and would have had to retrofit their buildings. East Baton Rouge judges said the changes they would have to undertake at their courthouse would have cost between $3 million and $10 million, according to a legislative financial analysis. Legislators initially delayed a vote on the bill last week over questions about the accuracy of the fiscal review attached to it. An earlier version didn't have as many of the potential costs included, in part, because State Public Defender Rémy Starns told the legislative staff to disregard information provided by his office. Daniel Druilhet, a member of the Legislative Fiscal Office staff, said Starns asked him to ignore any costs public defenders had initially said would be associated with the bill when drafting the fiscal review. '[W]hile I did receive an initial response from the Office of the State Public Defender, including information from those four jurisdictions related to potential costs, I was contacted by Mr. Starns on May 2, 2025, instructing me not to include that cost in the fiscal note,' Druilhet told senators at a public hearing last week. In response to Druilhet's comments, the senators put off a vote on the matter for a week so a new financial write-up could be put together. Sen. Katrina Jackson-Andrews, D-Monroe, chastised Starns for intervening in the legislative process. 'I want our state employees to understand there's not a time when they can tell our fiscal office not to consider costs that have been submitted,' she said after Druilhet's testimony. Starns told Jackson he had decided, after an amendment was added to the legislation, that the expenses his office had turned over to the fiscal office were no longer relevant. Starns has been working closely with the attorney general on other criminal justice bills filed this session that would give Starns more authority over local public defender office budgets and personnel. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana AG wants juvenile ‘change of venue' bill, Caddo DA and judges do not
SHREVEPORT, La. (KTAL/KMSS) – Caddo Parish District Attorney James E. Stewart, Sr., is asking lawmakers to reconsider a bill that would allow district attorneys' offices around the state to send juvenile proceedings to district court judges for trials and hearings. Senate Bill 74, sponsored by Senator Alan Seabaugh and heavily supported by the Louisiana Attorney General's Office, would allow for a venue change if prosecutors believe that the juvenile courts cannot properly prosecute certain youth offenses. DA Stewart said in his opinion that the state is trying to legislate a chronic issue in New Orleans through an unnecessary statewide measure. In March, voters rejected a similar ballot initiative that called for expanding offenses for which a juvenile could be charged as an adult. During a Senate Criminal Justice Committee hearing, Seabaugh was adamant that SB 74 is not the same legislation as the failed amendment. He said this bill is strictly about venue. DA Stewart objects to proposed Senate bill related to juvenile court hearings, procecutions 'This bill supposedly is going to change what we call 'venue'. And it would allow certain juvenile cases to be heard in district court using the children's code rule, but by district court, judges, it's it's a solution to to a problem that's not there,' Stewart said. Proponents of the bill say it provides more discretion over where a juvenile trial can occur, but the district attorney already has some discretion over 15-year-old offenders. 'We can transfer that jurisdiction from juvenile court to adult court so they are treated like adults,' Stewart explained. The list includes, rape, homicide, car jacking, armed robbery violent all violent felonies. Within SB74, there are additional offenses, including burglary and battery, that would be included and on the table for transfer to district court. Seabaugh's assertion that the bill is strictly about venue may be true, but the game changes when youth offenders enter the court system. Changing the venue of juvenile hearings would change how the district court operates when the Louisiana Children's Code is in place. Juvenile court cases are not public like adult criminal trials. No spectators or media are allowed, and only necessary parties are allowed in the courtroom. Youth prosecutions are also expedited, requiring law enforcement, crime labs, court dockets, and other involved stakeholders to move quickly, without violating the code. Watch: Confronting the Plague of Juvenile Crime 'As of right now, the district court judges don't have to use the Children's Code. They use the criminal code or procedure, which is for adults. They would have to figure out the nuances of the children's code for the few times that you switch from one situation to the other,' Stewart said. The most significant difference between criminal district courts and juvenile courts is that the juvenile justice process is meant to be restorative, while criminal court is intended to be punitive. Another is the privacy of juvenile processes, which are primarily intended to protect young people who made poor decisions but can still turn their lives around through the interventions that the juvenile system provides. 'What people really don't understand is that support services, juvenile services. The Office of Juvenile Justice, truancy, Volunteers for Youth Justice, and the drug court. The mental courts are all set up in juvenile court. And how you're going to use them in two different places,' Stewart said. 'There are just a lot of little, small things that make juvenile court work, that we would have problems with if you attempted to move venue. Deputy AG Larry Freiman said the bill is needed because the increase in violent offenses committed by juveniles is exhausting a system that was created to handle fights, family trouble, truancy, and other non-violent crimes. The rise of youth engaged in shootouts, carjacking, robberies, and homicides is growing in a way that the current system is ill-equipped to handle. 'If the DA feels that their juvenile judges are doing a great job, then they don't have to move it. But if they think a case warrants it, they can,' Freiman said during the hearing. 'You know, our CDC (criminal district court) is full of dockets. We're trying to move as many cases as fast as possible. And changing gears, it's not well thought of. Fortunately, in Caddo, we have a separate juvenile court that could deal with all juvenile matters, and they do a good job of dealing with it. So it's really not necessary to transfer those cases for venue purposes and create a whole hybrid system here when you have, too much work already to be done.' On Monday, SB74 was brought before the Senate Finance Committee, which explored the bill's cost, which Senator Seabaugh said was negligible at best. He testified that the bill would have no state general fund impact. He did note that local areas may see a slight increase while some may see a decrease, 'But neither is determinable. The fiscal note would be zero or indeterminable.' Baton Rouge Public Defenders' Office testified during the hearing, explaining to lawmakers that the bill would strain her office's personnel and finances. Her testimony sparked a discussion that ultimately led to the bill's deferment. Caddo Parish Juvenile Court Judges testified that Caddo District Court is already 'begging for judges' and that the bill would require a separate section and probation staff. One retired Caddo juvenile judge explained that criminal district court judges know nothing about the children's code and that getting them up to speed on the differences will involve training costs. He also foreboded 'the harm to come' while that real-time training is happening. Ultimately, Seabaugh voluntarily deferred the bill while the fiscal note is amended, which he said he doesn't anticipate will change much despite the testimony otherwise. DA Stewart said he is still willing to work with lawmakers and other stakeholders on real solutions and interventions to prevent young people from committing crimes, rather than knee-jerk reactions that lead to legislation that will stress an already stressed system. 'I know some people are interested in it, but then you get sidetracked with bills like this, where you're dealing with other issues. I mean, really, the problem is the juvenile court or truancy. So you need some kind of support for choices. Then you have delinquents, they come out of the Department of Juvenile Justice, and they don't have the support systems to get them back in school to teach them or treat or make them be successful, young people, before they ever get into the adult system,' Stewart said. The bill will be returned to the Senate Finance Committee on Monday, May 19. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
American Press
30-04-2025
- Politics
- American Press
Jim Beam column:Two bad bills have surfaced
Louisiana state Sen. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, has one of two bad bills that have surfaced during the state's current legislative session.(Photo courtesy of The Advocate). Every session of the Louisiana Legislature — regular or special — has a good number of bad bills. Luckily, most are defeated but some get through. Thankfully, one of the worst bills in the current session was defeated in committee last week with a 7-7 vote. The authors and supporters of both measures said they have no connection to the four amendments defeated on March 29, but opponents aren't buying that argument. House Bill 200 by Rep. Dixon McMakin, R-Baton Rouge, was sidetracked by the House and Governmental Affairs Committee. The Advocate reported that McMakin said he wouldn't attempt to revive his legislation. McMakin wanted to add an unbelievable number of members to the East Baton Rouge Parish Republican Executive Committee. Former state Rep. Woody Jenkins chairs that committee and in an interview he said Gov. Jeff Landry pushed for passage of McMakin's bill to punish Jenkins for campaigning against the four amendments. Jenkins said doubling the GOP executive committee's membership would lead to his ouster as parish party chairman. A spokesperson for Gov. Landry said he was unaware of McMakin's bill, although Derek Babcock, the state GOP party chair, said he told the governor during an interview two days earlier he would oppose McMakin's bill and that the two men had agreed to disagree over the measure. The newspaper said during 90 minutes of tart debate and questioning 'a parade of fellow Baton Rouge Republicans repeatedly told him (McMakin) Wednesday he had committed the egregious sin of wanting state government to meddle in the business of the GOP governing authority in East Baton Rouge Parish.' Babcock told the committee, 'Political parties are private groups' and 'have the right to establish their own internal rules. State control over committee elections is not necessary.' Senate Bill 74 by Sen. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, is the other bad bill. It was amended to say if district attorneys approve, they could move criminal cases with 15- and 16-year-old defendants from juvenile jurisdictions to adult courts. Those juveniles would still be tried under the juvenile legal code, not the adult code. The original bill automatically moved all those cases to adult courts. The Senate Judiciary C Committee voted 6-1 to send the bill to the full Senate. The Louisiana Illuminator reported that state Attorney General Liz Murrill wants state lawmakers to pass Seabaugh's bill 'a few weeks after Louisiana overwhelmingly voted down a constitutional amendment that could have led to similar teenage transfers in the criminal justice system.' Seabaugh, like McMakin, said his bill isn't a response to the amendment because he planned to file his bill before voters rejected the amendment. That reminds me of the old saying, 'If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.' Opponents of Seabaugh's legislation offered some excellent reasons why it's a terrible idea. Some said it would throw four of the state's largest court systems — in Orleans, Jefferson, East Baton Rouge and Caddo parishes — into chaos. They have juvenile courts with judges who solely handle cases involving people under age 17. Paul Young, a retired Caddo Parish juvenile court judge, said, 'Children are not simply tiny adults that you can handle in adult criminal court.' Critics say the public sent a clear message on moving minors into the adult system when 66% of them rejected an amendment doing the same thing. The Illuminator said there is broad consensus that rehabilitation provided in the juvenile system — as opposed to punishment provided in adult prisons — is especially effective for teenagers because their brains haven't fully developed yet. Jay Dixon, a former state public defender in Louisiana who now works in Massachusetts, said, 'There are tons of studies that show that is the worst thing you can do and all it does is create another generation of criminals.' Some critics say district courts are already overwhelmed by their current workloads. Young said moving juveniles into those courts would cause severe scheduling challenges. The Advocate called the defeat of the four constitutional amendments on March 29 'Landry's biggest political defeat as governor to date.' It's long past time for Landry, Murrill, Seabaugh, McMakin and others who are upset over that defeat to get over it. The voters have made it clear how they feel about handling juveniles in the court system. Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than six decades. Contact him at 337-515-8871 or Reply Forward Add reaction
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana attorney general wants to move more teenagers from juvenile to adult court
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill wants state lawmakers to pass a new law that would transfer more 15- and 16-year-olds to district courts that handle adult cases. (Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) Attorney General Liz Murrill wants state lawmakers to pass a new law that would move hundreds of criminal cases with 15- and 16-year-old defendants from juvenile to adult courts every year. The request comes a few weeks after Louisiana overwhelmingly voted down a constitutional amendment that could have led to similar teenage transfers in the criminal justice system. Murrill included Senate Bill 74, sponsored by Sen. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, in her the package of bills she is pushing during the Louisiana Legislature's 2025 session. As currently written, it would automatically put 15- and 16-year-olds charged with felony crimes who currently go before juvenile justice judges in front of district court judges who typically handle adult defendants. In an interview Tuesday, Murrill described the legislation as solely a 'venue change,' meaning the teens would still be subjected to juvenile criminal standards and not face lengthier adult prison sentences. Opponents said the bill would throw four of the state's largest court systems – in Orleans, Jefferson, East Baton Rouge and Caddo parishes – into chaos. Those jurisdictions have juvenile courts with judges who solely handle cases involving people under age 17. 'Children are not simply tiny adults that you can handle in adult criminal court,' said Paul Young, a retired Caddo Parish juvenile court judge who opposes Murrill's legislation. Other parts of the state would also feel the effects of the proposal. In some parts of Louisiana, city and parish courts handle cases with teenagers under 17. Like juvenile courts, their authority over 15- and 16-year-olds facing felony allegations would be transferred to district courts focused on adults if the bill passes. Critics say the public sent a clear message on moving minors into the adult criminal justice system in March. That's when 66% of state voters rejected a constitutional amendment Gov. Jeff Landry backed that could have put 15- and 16-year-olds in adult prisons for a wider range of offenses. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE The bill doesn't go quite as far as the amendment could have. Fifteen- and 16-year-olds would still be subjected to lighter juvenile punishments instead of adult sentences, but the senator's aim is to put more teenagers in adult courts. But Seabaugh said he planned to file his bill before voters rejected the constitutional change. 'The bill is not a response to the amendment,' he said. Instead, the legislation is a reaction to frustrations with juvenile court judges in New Orleans, according to Seabaugh and Murrill. They don't believe those judges are giving out harsh enough sentences, and the gentler approach is contributing to a high crime rate. 'The juvenile judges, particularly in Orleans Parish, are not doing their job,' Seabaugh said in an interview last week. Murrill doubled down on Seabaugh's concern about juvenile court judges in New Orleans. She said minors in the city are not being held responsible for offenses they commit, But the attorney general is also considering ways to soften the proposal with regards to juvenile judges in other parts of the state because, she said, there are those who are 'doing a good job.' Murrill may ask for an amendment to the legislation to give district attorneys and her office the option to move a felony case involving a 15- or 16-year-old to district court instead of mandating an automatic transfer. The change would help address problems with juvenile court judges in New Orleans, she said, while not yanking cases from other judges who are performing effectively. State elected officials like Seabaugh and Murrill, who call for stricter criminal measures, like to emphasize New Orleans public safety challenges, even though the city has seen a dramatic decline in its crime rate over the past two years. The New Orleans juvenile court judges also pushed back on Murrill and Seabaugh's statements about their lack of effectiveness. Intake arrests for New Orleans minors were down by almost a third between 2023 and 2024, according to the New Orleans juvenile judges' spokeswoman Yolanda Johnson. 'The Court is perplexed by the inaccuracies being presented that is not supported by data,' Johnson wrote in a prepared statement provided Tuesday. There is also broad consensus that rehabilitation provided in the juvenile system – as opposed to punishment provided in adult prisons – is especially effective for teenagers because their brains haven't fully developed yet. 'There are tons of studies that show that is the worst thing you can do and all it does is create another generation of criminals,' Jay Dixon, the former state public defender in Louisiana who now works in Massachusetts, said about the plan to put more minors in adult court. 'It is incredibly stupid and short-sighted,' Dixon said. But Seabaugh points out judges already handle criminal cases for minors and adults side by side in Louisiana's smaller judicial districts. Rural courts, which have as few as two judges, don't have the luxury of a specialty juvenile court. District courts with juvenile sections in Caddo, Orleans, Jefferson and East Baton Rouge parishes are already busy, however, and don't have the capacity or facilities to take on a large influx of underage defendants, critics say. State laws require juvenile cases to be handled on a much faster timeline. Minors have to go to trial within three months of their arrest, whereas adult cases are allowed to languish for over a year, Young said. Juvenile cases also require judges to meet in person with minor defendants every six months while they are incarcerated. By contrast, a district court judge often never sees an adult convicted of a crime after their sentencing, Young said. District judges in the four parishes with juvenile courts are overwhelmed by their current workloads. Moving several hundred cases onto their dockets would cause severe scheduling challenges, Young said. 'You can't hold a child in limbo waiting for trial for upwards of a year or more,' he said. District judges would also have to close their courtrooms every time they handle a juvenile case. Most hearings for adult defendants are open to the public, but juvenile cases have to be conducted in private. Transporting more minors and holding them in the courthouses could also prove difficult. Federal law requires underage people to be driven to court independently of adult defendants. They also have to be kept in separate holding spaces while awaiting their hearings, and some courthouses aren't equipped to house them independent of adults. District attorneys and public defenders might also be forced to hire more staff to cover juvenile cases. 'From a volume perspective, it's going to cause issues,' said Michelle AndrePont, who runs the public defender office in Caddo Parish. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Library workers deserve protection, not prosecution
Guest commentator says Senate Bill 74's practical effect would be to criminalize library workers for simply doing their job. Getty Images Georgians have access to a public library in every county in the state, adding up to more than 400 public library branches. In 2024, Georgia's library cardholders borrowed more than 11.7 million items from their local public libraries, an increase of 407,500 items borrowed compared to the year before. This is made possible by library workers who ensure materials are accessible, maintain various collections, assist patrons, and handle the behind-the-scenes work to keep the checkout systems running smoothly. Despite this, these crucial professionals now face unwarranted threat of criminal prosecution because of what's happening at the Georgia Legislature. Senate Bill 74 would strip library workers at all public libraries (i.e., county, university, K-12, and community libraries) of protection from criminal prosecution if they 'knowingly' distribute material that is deemed 'harmful to minors.' This phrase is defined in Georgia Code § 16-12-102 based loosely on the U.S. Supreme Court's 'obscenity' definition. The legislation's practical effect would be to criminalize library workers for simply doing their job. For example, for library workers to avoid prosecution under SB 74, they would have to be familiar with the complete content of the hundreds of thousands of titles contained in their library collections and make a good faith effort to keep media containing any portion that could be deemed 'harmful' out of the hands of any person under 18. It is not feasible for library workers to maintain such encyclopedic knowledge of their collections, nor for them to determine what is 'harmful' for each minor library patron they encounter. As any parent can tell you, what is 'harmful' for a kindergartener may be entirely suitable for a high school junior, yet SB 74 takes no account of these age distinctions. Moreover, with the availability of library reading rooms and the advent of self-checkout machines, library workers are not going to be privy to the materials that each person under the age of 18 is browsing or checking out. In the words of one career librarian in the state, 'Making an assurance that minors would never have any contact with objectionable material would be nearly impossible without keeping anyone under the age of 18 away from all library resources.' This would have a chilling effect on what materials libraries carry in their collections and result in unanticipated restrictions on young people using libraries. Georgia's library workers already give a great deal of thought to age-appropriate content. There are existing selection processes that require that materials added to library collections meet certain criteria for quality, relevance, and value. Whether a book is scientific, literary, historical, or religious, it goes through a vetting process by professional library workers, who consider factors like author credibility, readership interest, and educational merit. Even if a book is considered controversial, its presence in a library suggests it has been determined by library professionals to merit inclusion in the collection for public access, discussion, or preservation. Criminalizing library workers for enabling patrons to check out books disregards the professional judgement exercised by trained library workers in assembling their collections and thwarts the fundamental role libraries play in people's access to information. The legislation echoes the past. Georgia has a long history of attempting to use state power to restrict access to information under the pretense of protecting the public. In December 1829, Georgia passed anti-literacy laws, criminalizing teachers for educating enslaved Black people. Later, segregated libraries limited access to information for Black and White readers. The legislation is a modern-day restriction of access to knowledge based on a government-imposed definition of 'harmful' materials influenced by the government's disfavor of certain topics or viewpoints. Other states that have passed bills similar to SB 74 have faced and lost costly legal battles. In Arkansas, for instance, in July 2023 a federal judge temporarily blocked provisions that could imprison library workers for providing 'harmful' materials to minors. Then, in December 2024, a federal judge ruled those provisions unconstitutional, permanently blocking the implementation of certain provisions. If SB 74 passes, Georgia taxpayers could end up footing the bill for inevitable legal challenges — court battles the state is likely to lose. Managing which materials young people access from their public libraries is best and most appropriately handled by parents and their kids making their own family- and age-specific decisions, not the government. With more than 11 million checkouts in 2024—a surge compared to 2023—Georgians have made it clear: Public libraries are a needed resource for diverse and valuable information. By making it possible to criminally prosecute library workers, SB 74 threatens to chill access by reducing both the variety of materials on the shelves and the ability of young people to access it. Library workers need your support. Call or email your local legislator and demand they oppose SB 74. Donate, volunteer, or simply visit your local library—because library workers deserve protection, not prosecution. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
