Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

« Bunnell trial: Delestre takes the 5th, tot's mother wails | Today | Surfer swept out to sea off Matunuck rescued »

May 13, 2008

Update: High court takes 'gap kids' case to students

WARWICK -- As students looked on at Bishop Hendricken High School this morning, the state Supreme Court grilled lawyers about whether felony charges should be dismissed against the “gap kids” who were charged during the 130 days when Rhode Island prosecuted 17-year-olds as adults.

While it usually hears arguments in Providence, the Supreme Court has revived the tradition of “riding the circuit.” Today, it convened at the Catholic school in Warwick to hear arguments in the “gap kids” controversy, as well as in two other cases.

In July, the General Assembly adopted Governor Carcieri’s budget proposal to save money by treating 17-year-olds as adults in criminal matters. But the savings never materialized, and on Nov. 7 the Assembly repealed the law without making the repeal retroactive. That left about 500 “gap kids” charged as adults between July 1 and Nov. 8.

In February, Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Procaccini dismissed felony charges filed against 115 of those teenagers, and he decided to hold four indictments “in abeyance” pending Family Court hearings — including the indictment of Ryan Greenberg, who has been indicted on a charge of second-degree murder in connection with the boating death of another Barrington teenager. Now, the Supreme Court is weighing appeals in those matters.

Journal photo / Mary Murphy
State Supreme Court Justices Maureen McKenna Goldberg and Paul Suttell

During today’s arguments, the justices zeroed in on why the law was changed in the first place.

“Why is this such a hot topic?” Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg asked. “Heretofore, 17-year-olds were sufficiently and justly adjudicated in the Family Court with the exception of those who are charged with the most heinous offenses.”

“I don’t quarrel with that,” said Assistant Attorney General Aaron L. Weisman, chief of the appellate unit. But he noted the General Assembly did change the law in July before changing it back in November.

“All because of an effort to save money,” Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams said. “How much money?”

Weisman said, “They contemplated savings of up to $3.6 million.”

“And how much did they save?” Williams asked.

Journal photo / Mary Murphy
Lawyer Aaron L. Weisman

Weisman said, “It turned out they did not save money.”

“Of course,” Williams said. “Every single proposal that’s been made in the past two years, whether it’s furlough days or stuff like this, has not saved a single dime. And we’re talking about people here.”

-- Journal staff writer Edward Fitzpatrick

Weisman said, “There were reasons” behind the decision to change the law. “Obviously, it is far more expensive to keep someone at the Training School than to incarcerate them at the ACI.”

“It’s far more expensive?” Goldberg asked. “What about A.T. Wall? Didn’t he testify to just the opposite?”

Weisman said state Corrections Director A.T. Wall decided 17-year-olds should be held in protective custody at the Adult Correctional Institutions, and that proved to be “slightly more expensive” than the Training School.

“What is your office’s position on these 17-year-olds? Where do you think they ought to be, Mr. Weisman?” Goldberg asked.

Weisman said Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch was not in favor of the legislation that treated 17-year-olds as adults.

“I wasn’t asking about legislation,” Goldberg said, “I’m asking where you send a 17-year-old in July.”

“Our job is to execute the laws as passed by the General Assembly, and the General Assembly determined that for offenses committed during the period from July to November, they are going to be treated as adults,” Weisman said. “And we honor our commitment to execute the laws whether we agreed or disagreed with them at the time.”

Williams said, “That’s exactly right, Mr. Weisman, and we commend you for that. Even if you have a different view personally and the attorney general feels otherwise, that is your job. But we may not buy into that, other than your duty, which we respect.”

After the hearing, Williams said the Supreme Court will attempt to have this decision, along with others, completed by July 4.

Posted by Mike McKinney at 4:47 PM | Permalink

May 13, 2008

Update: High court takes 'gap kids' case to students

Comments

Post a comment