Via Skelly at Arbitrary and Capricious, a 14 year old boy named Trevor Reizenstein will be tried as an adult for the sexual assault and beating of a 5 year old girl in 2007. A horrible crime for sure, but even if we assume Reizenstein to be guilty, he was 12 years old at the time it happened.
Reizenstein’s case was in limbo since November 2008, when Canyon County sheriff’s deputies transfered the boy from the juvenile facility to the adult jail after receiving a signed court order to do so.
His attorney moved to have him tried as a juvenile, which kept the case on hold until the Idaho Supreme Court ultimately held 4-1 that he should be tried as an adult. Thus far, a now-14 year old boy has spent two years detained awaiting trial. The Idaho Press article contains this inexplicable paragraph:
According to Idaho law, if a juvenile age 14 or older commits a serious crime, his or her juvenile status is automatically waived. However, Reizenstein was 12 years old at the time the girl was attacked.
This provocative assertion required further investigation, as the article provided no further explanation. But an article from USA Today following the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision raised more questions than answers:
The high court ruled 4-1 that Trevor Reizenstein should be tried as adult for attempted murder, battery and forcible penetration with a foreign object.
A psychologist and a juvenile probation department committee both said the boy would be best served in the juvenile court system, based on his immaturity and lack of competency to stand trial as an adult.
But in its 20-page ruling, the high court found the youth would likely need treatment long after he would be released if convicted under the juvenile court system, and that he was sophisticated and street-smart for his age.
To the extent this explanation of the decision makes sense, the court ignored the court appointed psychologist and probation in favor of its own projection of the boy’s future treatment needs?
In his appeal, Sullivan pointed out the findings of Dr. Craig Beaver, a psychologist appointed by the lower court to evaluate Reizenstein. Beaver found the boy had an IQ of 75, five points above the threshold for mild mental retardation, and that he had behavior disorders. Beaver also found that the boy was significantly immature, had a significant drug and alcohol history for a child his age and showed signs of depression, according to the court ruling.
Beaver ultimately recommended that Reizenstein’s case be handled in juvenile court, and a committee of 10 juvenile correction officials made the same recommendation after determining that the state’s juvenile detention system had services available to help Reizenstein and that it could meet his needs while protecting the community.
Certainly, the objective evidence appears overwhelmingly in favor of Reizenstein being treated as the child he is. But none of this explains what became of Idaho law that only at age 14 may the court determine that his alleged conduct warrants adult treatment. The articles discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision stated:
The Supreme Court — which referred to Reizenstein as “John Doe” throughout its ruling — said that even though the boy was young, had below-average intelligence and was behind other students his age at school, he was still a street-wise minor who had a sophistication exceeding his chronological age.
What was the basis for this conclusion. This anecdote:
“After working on competency at NCH for over four months, Doe became angry during a group session and announced that he could have passed the competency test at any time, but felt he was being railroaded. He then took the test and passed with a 96 percent,” Justice Jim Jones wrote for the majority. “According to the court, this sequence of events indicated a disturbing ‘level of deceit and sophistication.”‘Of course, Reizenstein’s penchant might have had something to do with the fact that he and his siblings were horribly neglected by their parents.
Reizenstein’s penchant for engaging in adult behaviors — such as using drugs and alcohol and fending for himself at home — also were evidence of an increased maturity level, the court said.
Beaver also said Reizenstein had little family support, with parents who condoned his use of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana and a mother — who was on probation for possession of methamphetamine — who frequently left him and his sisters home alone, without food, for days.The determination that a 12 year old, borderline retarded boy, neglected by his parents and left to abuse drugs and alcohol, should be treated as an adult is, standing alone, a travesty. It is not to diminish the seriousness of the harm done to a 5 year old girl, but no matter how horrible the crime, it doesn’t alter the fact that Trevor Reizenstein is a child as well. Except perhaps in Idaho?
In fact, the Idaho Supreme Court noted in its ruling, several child protection cases alleging neglect and abuse had been filed against Reizenstein’s parents since his birth.
What is more shocking is the lame rationalization provided by the Supreme Court in support of its throwing Reizenstein to the wolves of the adult legal system. Despite every safeguard supposedly in place to protect children from the law, the Court chose to ignore the findings of the psychologist and probation officials and rely instead on one of the weakest, most absurdly cobbled together bases, imaginable.
The message here is clear. The crime was horrific and this “bad” kid was going to be sacrificed to pay for it. So what if every legitimate factor militates against it, he’s going to pay.
For those of us who reject the notion that children should be treated as adults to satisfy the blood lust of public opinion, Trevor Reizenstein should not be tried as an adult under any circumstances. But for the Idaho Supreme Court to so facially flaunt its bias, and to conclude, in the face of all objective evidence to the contrary, that this boy be treated like a man reduces the law to a sham.
It was a horrible crime. What happened to this 5 year old girl is awful, and should never happen. But that doesn’t turn a 12 year old boy into an adult. Nor does the terrible nature of the crime make him guilty. Now he’s just another child lost to the system.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott, if it’s not too technical, can you explain briefly what it means to say he will be tried as an adult? I hear that all the time, but no one ever explains it. What’s the difference? Different goals? Harsher punishment? Changes in procedure?
Part of the answer varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, particularly the procedural rules that apply to juvenile proceedings as opposed to adult criminal proceedings. But the more significant difference is in punishment, with juvenile usually dedicated to far shorter punishment, rehabilitation being the primary goal, and return to the community. Rarely can a juvenile be held beyond attaining the age of majority.
It’s the courts and the laws. The legislative enabler of this judicial error is Idaho’s juvenile corrections act, found in Idaho Code Title 20, “State Prison and County Jails” (rather than where you would expect to find it, in Title 16, “Juvenile Proceedings,” which is a legacy of the national drive to criminalize the juvenile justice system and purge it of its rehabilitative focus).
I.C. §20-508 lays out the legal fiction of how a 12-year-old or even younger Idahoan could be deemed an adult for purposes of crime and punishment:
“(T)he court may waive jurisdiction under the juvenile corrections act over the juvenile and order that the juvenile be held for adult criminal proceedings when:
(a) A juvenile is alleged to have committed any of the crimes enumerated in section 20-509, Idaho Code; or
(b) A juvenile is alleged to have committed an act other than those enumerated in section 20-509, Idaho Code, after the child became fourteen (14) years of age which would be a crime if committed by an adult…”
http://www.legislature.Idaho.gov/idstat/Title20/T20CH5SECT20-508.htm
In Idaho, under I.C. §20-509, and after the tender application of the sort of due process which Trevor Reizenstein received, a child under the age of 14 can be tried as a adult when charged with the following acts:
* Murder of any degree or attempted murder;
* Robbery;
* Rape (excluding stat rape);
* “Forcible sexual penetration by the use of a foreign object”;
* “Infamous crimes against nature” (which is not even defined in the statute, but is Idaho arcana for oral or anal sex (a la Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)), committed by force or violence;
* Mayhem;
* Assault or battery with the intent to commit any of the above serious felonies;
* Manufacture or delivery / possession with intent at or near a school;
* Arson in the first degree and aggravated arson
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title20/T20CH5SECT20-509.htm
One hope is that even though waived into adult court, a juvenile might still be sentenced to juvenile corrections instead of the adult side. I have personal experience with this – not as a kid myself, but with a 15-year-old robbery client.
I also have personal experience with Trevor Ravenstein’s lawyers, and I am confident that no matter how stacked the deck, they will lawyer the hell out of this case to protect their client. Thanks for bringing more attention to this child’s situation.
And thanks for the link.
Hey pal, I always appreciate your catches as well as your take. Thanks for posting about this case.
“Except perhaps in Idaho?”
What is that supposed to mean? I guess it’s just another veiled reference to Idaho being a backward state filled with skinheads?
It’s amazing when people from other parts of the country decide to weigh in on a local matter and share their endless wisdom with us.
It’s not bad enough that their brand of justice is already practiced in 80% of the country, they also wish to force their watered down standards on us as well.
I understand that enlightened states like California do not take kindly to persons under the age of 18 being held responsible for their actions. How else do you produce a society with the highest rates of crime anywhere in the country?
One thing I did notice is that you failed to describe in any detail the perpetrators actual crime or list any of his multitude of previous offenses. You just talk about a 12 year old boy who is being wrongly punished by a caveman state.
Accountability is what’s lacking. Those who argue for weaker drug laws because “drugs don’t hurt anyone” are the same ones who use the abuse of alcohol and drugs in this kids home as an excuse for his behavior. You can’t have it both ways.
Was it an accident that thousands of people from California flee every year and settle in Idaho neighborhoods? Do you think maybe they do this because it’s a safe place to raise a family? Because they don’t want to put their children into education systems brimming with untold gang members and assorted other thugs?
That’s the disease of liberalism and permisiveness. It’s not enough to ruin and bankrupt your own state, both morally and financially. You’re only happy if everyone else agrees with your twisted views and you wish to force your way of life onto everyone else. You think you know better than those stupid Hicks that live in the hills.
We’ll handle justice in our independent state the way we see fit, and I don’t expect people who live in California, New York, Oregon, Minnesota etc to conform to our view of justice.
Yeah, it’s a real shame you can’t just execute those 12 year olds. That would sure teach ’em how you deal with accountability in Idaho. And don’t compare yourself with cavemen. It’s insulting to cavemen.
That’s about what I figured. More personal insults instead of any facts. He’s not getting executed, he’s getting prison time. How about you take a look at the crime rates in New York vs. Idaho. Now explain to me how the criminal justice system in New York is more effective at preventing crime.
You can’t. Not even at $400 an hour.
“please keep it civil and respectful” So much for you keeping with the request on your own blog.
Facts? You come here and rant like a lunatic, then demand facts to refute you? Refute what? That treating a 12 year old as an adult fixes something? So what are the crime rates in New York versus Idaho? That’s right, you don’t have a clue, yet you want me to refute your empty assumption. Go back to Idaho.
And even this you don’t get. You are a guest in my house. I make the rules, and if you wish to comment, you live with them. Then agan, maybe this is another example of your Idaho brilliance. How much more damage do you plan to do to Idaho?
Per your request
Source : http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
Violent crime rates per 100,000
New York State Murder Rate:
2006 – 4.8
2007 – 4.2
2008 – 4.3
Idaho State Murder Rate:
2006 – 2.5
2007 – 3.3
2008 – 1.5
New York State Assault Rate:
2006 – 235.1
2007 – 233.7
2008 – 216.4
Idaho State Assault Rate:
2006 – 184.2
2007 – 182.0
2008 – 175.1
New York State Total Violent Crime Index:
2006 – 434.9
2007 – 414.1
2008 – 398.1
Idaho State Total Violent Crime Index:
2006 – 247.2
2007 – 239.4
2008 – 228.6
I don’t understand how the violent crime rate can be almost twice as high in New York? I’m not at all surprised you closed the forum for additional comments. We can’t let opposing views be heard now, can we?
Better to brand them all lunatics and silence them.
Now that you’ve actually done some work to support your position, you’ve got something besides your empty rhetoric to discuss. Of course New York has higher crimes rate than Idaho across the board, but these don’t correlate to trying a 12 year old as an adult. Do you not realize the number of factors that apply to these rates? For example, hHow many cities are there in Idaho with a population density like New York City? Poverty? Drug abuse? Hunger? Do you really believe that Idaho’s lower crime rate is because of your treatment of 12 year olds like adults?
Idaho ought to have significantly less than half the crime of New York. That you have more than half is a disgrace, and certainly no vindication of your policies.
You don’t get treated like an ass for disagreeing. You get treated like an ass for being an ass. You have no understanding of the complexities involved in crime rates, and your mindless attempt to connect it all to treating a 12 year old like an adult is utterly nonsensical. And yet you persisted.
The comments were not close. You were banned, because you violated the primary rule here. You behaved like an asshole. If you don’t want to be treated like a lunatic, then don’t act like one. Try doing something entirely different, like thinking before shooting off your mouth/keyboard.
And now that I’ve given you yet another chance to back up your rhetoric, you’ve still failed to offer any justification for your claim that treating a 12 year old like an adult makes any sense at all. But no doubt you’re no closer to recognizing the issue than you are to understanding why such a thing is a problem.