Tennessee’s new blended sentencing law goes into effect on Jan. 1, potentially altering the lives of hundreds of Tennessee children. Blended sentencing mandates children as young as 14 charged with serious offenses serve a juvenile sentence, called a disposition, until they turn 19. These children are also given an adult sentence, though whether they serve it depends on their behavior during their juvenile sentence.
This past year, Jasmine Ying Miller, a senior attorney at Youth Law Center, presented the Tennessee House of Representatives with an example of blended sentencing in practice. Miller wanted to show legislators that vulnerable children are the most likely to be impacted by blended sentencing. These same vulnerabilities also make them likely to trigger their adult sentences.
We’ve worked with Miller to expand her example, which we have annotated with additional context. This story demonstrates how blended sentencing could impact the lives of Memphis children.
Picture Alana.
Alana grew up in Memphis, though she’s never called any particular neighborhood home. Her family moved frequently1, pushed across the city by rent increases and evictions. On a few occasions, the family was investigated by Child Protective Services2. Her mother, humiliated, blamed the constant presence of social workers on nosy neighbors and school administrators. Meanwhile, Alana learned what to say and what to withhold in the presence of outsiders. 3
When Alana was in eighth grade, she met a boy named Charlie at a friend’s house. Charlie was 18. He struck 14-year-old Alana as mature and intelligent, and when he paid attention to her, she was flattered. Charlie and Alana started spending a lot of time together. Eventually, Charlie asked Alana if she’d be his girlfriend. Alana was thrilled4. Her mother was concerned.
Get more stories like this in your inbox every Wednesday in The Weekly.
Subscribe to MLK50’s newsletter
and get Memphis-rooted news and insights
right-sized for your neighborhood.
In the following months, Alana almost seemed to disappear. She came home less and stopped showing up at school. When her mother asked her what she’d been up to, her answers were vague. One day after work, Alana’s mother got a call: Alana had been arrested and taken to the juvenile detention center. Charlie had robbed a house while Alana acted as a lookout5, law enforcement told her, and now Alana was being charged with aggravated robbery.
Shortly after, Alana’s mother got even worse news. Even though this was Alana’s first offense, the prosecutor had asked the juvenile judge to give Alana a blended sentence. If Alana were adjudicated delinquent — “found guilty” in the language of juvenile court — she would get a juvenile disposition and an adult sentence for the same crime.
A blended sentence would force Alana to remain in the juvenile justice system until she turned 19, after which she might serve an additional adult sentence for three more years. In other words, after being arrested at 14, Alana could remain in the justice system’s custody until she turned 22.
Why would Alana receive a blended sentence?
Alana’s mother wanted to understand why Alana was getting a blended sentence. She knew her daughter had messed up. If it were up to her, she would discipline Alana herself. But the potential punishment seemed excessive. Why was Alana being charged with robbery6 if she’d only acted as a lookout? She was only 14, and it was her first offense. Why did she need to stay in the custody of the justice system for almost eight years?
As Alana’s mother researched blended sentencing, she found that under the law, children must receive a blended sentence if they had previously committed another serious offense or the district attorney requested it, as in Alana’s case.
Alana’s mother wondered why the prosecutor decided to target her daughter. She thought of the news coverage7 of Charlie’s robbery and the pressure on the city’s politicians to address youth crime. She started to suspect that Alana wouldn’t have been given a blended sentence if she’d been part of a lower-profile case.
Alana has a tough decision to make
Since prosecutors were seeking a blended sentence, Alana had a right to a jury trial.8 Now, she needed to decide whether or not to waive that right.
In Tennessee, juvenile courts do not have jury trials. If Alana opted for a trial, she would be tried in an adult court. Her lawyer warned her that if she wanted a trial, she’d be kept in the detention center until her court date. Wait times for jury trials could be a year long. At that point, Alana hadn’t been home in over two weeks. Waiting for a year or longer was unimaginable. She decided to waive her right to a jury trial.
The next week, Alana was adjudicated delinquent9 — found guilty — by a juvenile judge. As required by law, the judge gave Alana a juvenile disposition, or sentence, that would end on her 19th birthday. He also gave her an adult sentence of three years, the minimum for aggravated robbery.
The judge informed Alana that he was staying her adult sentence. She would only serve that sentence if she violated certain standards of behavior during her juvenile sentence. Shortly before her 19th birthday, a judge would evaluate whether Alana had (1) committed another delinquent act, (2) violated the terms of her supervision, (3) created any safety risks, (4) whether she’d graduated high school or gained an equivalent degree, and (5) whether she’d met certain educational and employment requirements during her sentence.
If Alana did well, she could go free at 19. But if she failed three or more of these criteria, she would have to serve her adult sentence. 10
A judge decides how Alana will serve her sentence
After Alana received her sentence, she waited for the judge to tell her how she would spend it. The remainder of Alana’s childhood would come down to the judge’s discretion and the resources available in Alana’s community.
Let’s say the juvenile judge wanted to give Alana a good chance at rehabilitation. Usually, he would give a child like her probation, but the court’s probation programs were designed to last six months11 — Alana’s juvenile sentence was almost five years. So, the judge got creative. He decided to put Alana on probation for six months and give her an additional four years of community service. The terms of Alana’s probation12 barred her from seeing Charlie, gave her a mandatory curfew, and required her to attend therapy.
This was likely the best-case scenario for Alana. The judge could have been preoccupied by the money and manpower it would take to keep Alana under court supervision for several years. In this case, he may have decided on a simpler solution: to place Alana in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services.
At that point, the Department of Children’s Services would have to figure out what to do with Alana. Usually, they would put her in a group home. But group homes aren’t designed to take children for five years. Besides, it’s unclear whether the DCS contractors who run group homes will accept children serving a blended sentence. Instead, Alana might complete her nearly five-year sentence in a “staff secure facility” — the child equivalent of prison.
Even in the best-case scenario, Alana might still end up in the adult system
Alana knew she didn’t want to serve an adult sentence. As her probation began, she promised herself she would follow the rules. Still, she struggled.
She tried to end things with Charlie, but he wouldn’t leave her alone. He messaged her constantly. He told her he loved her. He wished he could see her again and that no one needed to know if they saw each other. If she kept everything secret13, she would be fine. After weeks of messages, Charlie wore Alana down. One night, well past curfew, she slipped out of her house to see him.
In the next month, Charlie and Alana saw each other multiple times. During one of their meetings, he gave her a joint, which she shared with a friend. As Alana and her friend smoked, they were caught by Alana’s probation officer, who started questioning her. Under pressure, she admitted to seeing Charlie.
Collectively, Alana’s meetings with Charlie and sharing the joint meant she had violated the conditions of her supervision, committed another delinquent act, and engaged in conduct that posed a safety risk.
Alana was now required to serve an adult sentence, two months into her probation. No matter what she did in the following four years — even if she broke up with Charlie, even if she graduated from high school with honors, even if she never broke a rule again — she would spend at least three years in the adult criminal justice system.
Annotations
- A 2002 study found that childhood housing instability predicted “externalizing” — disruptive, aggressive, impulsive, or rule-breaking — behaviors in adolescence. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12220056/ ↩︎
- “It’s decently likely that a young person in this scenario would have had prior child welfare contact of some sort,” said Miller. “Girls are also more likely to have experienced some sort of prior sexual victimization.” A 2022 Youth Law Center report noted that “86.2% of youth who have been adjudicated delinquent and placed in the custody of DCS on the youth justice side have had prior contact with the Department through child welfare.” https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ylc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Families-Not-Facilities-Report-December-2022-DRT_YLC.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiGz_Pjy6-KAxWuLtAFHeN2KwcQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2nwnjKIM-ZzXOua66YIJ7b ↩︎
- Contact with the child welfare system is associated with a number of negative psychological outcomes. Link: (1) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36630851/ and (2) https://bit.ly/3BRdGcy. ↩︎
- Wider age gaps in adolescent relationships are associated with higher risk of delinquency. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213414001021 ↩︎
- Young people who have experienced violence or instability as children are more likely to experience abuse in adolescent relationships. Link: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/Teen-Dating-Violence#2-0 ↩︎
- Typically, young people — particularly those 15 and under — charged with serious offenses “were not the main instigator,” said Miller. “They’re charged because they were an accessory in some way.” Link to more data: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210360.pdf ↩︎
- “If it was a particularly high profile robbery, it’s more likely that, for political reasons, she’s going to get charged, even though it was a first time,” said Miller ↩︎
- Under blended sentencing, children have a right to a jury trial because they are facing an adult sentence in addition to their juvenile disposition. ↩︎
- Under blended sentencing, if kids choose to waive their right to a jury trial, they will have a hearing with a juvenile judge instead. ↩︎
- Under blended sentencing, judges are required to impose an adult sentence if certain criteria have been met. ↩︎
- Juvenile probations typically last six months or less. There’s a reason why these interventions are kept brief; generally, juvenile probations can effectively be completed in six months. (Link: https://www.aecf.org/resources/transforming-juvenile-probation-terms) Meanwhile, evidence indicates that extended probation periods are associated with an increased risk of probation violations. (Link: https://bit.ly/49X2fwu) ↩︎
- Juvenile probation looks different in every jurisdiction. In addition to the terms outlined here, probation might also include mandatory school attendance, electronic monitoring, and random searches. Link: https://www.aecf.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-about-juvenile-probation ↩︎
- Blended sentences may incentivize children to lie to their caregivers and therapists, Miller said. The threat of an adult sentence “sets up a really weird situation where programs and people who are supposed to be helping this young person and rehabilitate them become potential antagonistic sources of information,” she added. ↩︎
Rebecca Cadenhead is the youth life and justice reporter for MLK50: Justice Through Journalism. She is also a corps member with Report for America, a national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms. Email her rebecca.cadenhead@mlk50.com.
This is homegrown journalism, and it’s powered by you.
Stories like this are possible because of readers like you. When you donate today, your gift will be tripled, up to $1,000 per gift, thanks to generous matching support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Partner Fund. Help us unlock $5,000 in matching funds and sustain impactful, homegrown journalism rooted in Memphis.
Donate today to maximize your impact and help us hold power to account.
This story is brought to you byMLK50: Justice Through Journalism, a nonprofit newsroom focused on poverty, power and policy in Memphis. Support independent journalism by making a tax-deductible donation today. MLK50 is also supported by these generous donors.