Video Analysis Of The Film 'Kids For Cash'

Michelle ElsenbaryEthics and Diversity in CJVideo AnalysisProfessor MillerFebruary 16, 2018"Kids for Cash"Video AnalysisThis three-part video series 'Kids for Cash"is about twojudges named Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan who took money from two private prisons to send kids away; meaning trading kids for cash.The video documentary discusses three different casesof kids who were sent to juvenile detention under Judge Ciavarella. It also includes interviews from Robert Schwartz, the executive director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia; and Robert May, the director and producer of ''Kids for Cash" documentary. In the first video, Heather Transue tells her story about how she was sent to juvenile detentionwhen she was 15 years old.She

had created a MySpace page that mocked her high school vice principal. Her mother, Lorene received a phone call from a police officer about the MySpacepage and informed her that he would be coming to arrest Heather. Lorene requested that she get an attorney but the officer threatened to arrest her for internet stalking and abuse of the internet. If no lawyers were involved, then the charges would be reduced to misdemeanor of harassment.

However, this was not what took place. Heather and her mother went to court and was told byaprobation officer that there was no need for a lawyer because the maximum sentence would be probation and community service. She had to sign a paper stating that they did not have a lawyer. When they entered the court room theywere in front of Judge Ciavarella. He referred to her as an adjudicated delinquent and she was then handcuffed and sent to juvenile detention.The series then includes an interview with Charlie who was also sent to juvenile detention for officers assuming he had received stolen property, even though his family

had
bought it for him. He was coercedto accept the charge. However, Judge Ciavarellasentenced him to threemonths at Camp Adams, which is aboot camp for children with behavioral problems. He also had to spend another 3 months at Clearbrook because he had experienced with marijuana. Another interview is about a mother named, Sandy Fonzo whose son, Ed had committed suicide because of the ordeal that he endured from the sentencing he received from Judge Ciavarella. Ed was in and out of juvenile detention and the experiences he endured, negatively affected him. In 2011, after 8 years of initially sentencing Ed to juvenile detention, Judge Ciavarellawas charged, tried and convicted of this kids for cash scheme.As Ciaverellais defending himself outside of the courthouse, Sandy confronts him because of what he did to her son. The third part of the video includes an interview from Robert Schwartzand Robert May. Robert Schwartz explains how the probation officers, public defenders, private bar and prosecutors did nothing to stop this injustice. He explained that the prosecutors broke the code of ethics in professional responsibility because prosecutors have an ethical obligation to see that justice is done. Along with himself and others at the Juvenile Law Center, they filed a petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reverse the adjudicated delinquency judgmentsagainst these kids. At the sametime, an investigation into Judge Conahan had started from the FBI . The US Attorney office charged Ciavarellawith theft of lawful services, wire fraud and tax evasion. Also, he was charged for signing a bill of information contract that included information about receiving money in exchange for kids. In the end, Ciavarellaand Conahan were both charged for taking $2.6 million from two private prisons by sending kids to prison. Ciavarellawas sentenced to 28 years and Conahan was sentenced to 17 years.
The first step for analyzing ethical dilemmas is to acknowledge the problem clearly.

The ethical problem in this case is that the judge sentkids to prison in exchange for cash.The next step is to examine the situation and identify those involved in the dilemma. The judge has sent numerous kids to prison for insufficient reasons just because he will receive a payout. The kids, familiesand the lawyers and prosecutorsare all involved. The third step is collecting the relevant facts to make decision through examining the implications, consequences and responsibility to report. The probation officers, lawyers and prosecutors clearly should have reported to the state bar what was going on. They maybe refrained from reporting him because they were threatened by him. The fourth step is to recall the ethical theoriesand principles and apply them to the situation. Ciavarellaand Conahanbroke the code of judicial conduct by not upholding and promoting the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciaryand shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Also, theybroke the code about performing the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently. The fifth step is to identify the available options in the situation. In thissituation, it was lawful that the Juvenile Law Center got involved in exposingthesejudges. If nobody had intervened, then this corruption may still be taking place. The sixth step is to make a decision based on what is most

ethically appropriate and then act on that decision.The most ethical decision was made in this case because the Juvenile Law Centerfiled a petition with the PA Supreme Court that resulted in the US Attorney charging Ciavarellawith these unethical practices. The abuse of power by the judges question the trustworthiness of the justice system. The community will be negatively impacted on future cases involving children because theywill want to make sure that their cases are being handled ethically and that the judges are not abusing their power.