In a recent three-part series by Jessica Da Silva , Bloomberg News covers three different aspects of juvenile justice reform efforts in the US:

First “Clarity, Creativity Combat Ills of Juvenile Fines, Fees” looks at the negative impact of fines and fees on juvenile offenders and their families, focussing on Georgia as an example.

Second, “Educating Juveniles Stymied by Punishment-First Approach” examines the tension between rehabilitation and punishment in the juvenile justice system, using educational opportunity as a case study.

Third, “Advocates Want Juvenile Justice Overhaul, Clash Over Direction” analyzes some of the issues in a major reform effort in Virginia that invested in community-based alternative programming such as alternative placements, treatment for disabilities or substance abuse, and support for reentering communities after incarceration, rather than the historical focus on youth prisons.

In oral argument this past week, in Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court considered how states can properly define intellectual disability for purposes of capital punishment – a nagging question left hanging by Atkins v. Virginia, the 2002 case that held the 8th Amendment’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the execution of the intellectually disabled. Later, in 2014’s Hall v. Florida, the court held the determination of who is mentally disabled should be “informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.” In finding Bobbie Moore, whose IQ has been measured in the low 70’s, to be eligible for the death penalty, Texas courts used a framework that relied (among other things) on standards for intellectual disability that date back to 1992, as outlined in a 2004 decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Per Amy Hall of SCOTUSblog, the argument seemed to go well for Mr. Moore’s case, with essentially the same 5 justices who decided Hall v Florida – Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan – appearing to be critical of the Texas rule. Unclear is  what effect the court’s ruling might have on other Texas inmates, and on inmates on death row in other states.

Good survey of recent research on the effects of bilingual education in this article, “Six Benefits of Bilingual Education.” The six are:

1. Attention

It turns out that, in many ways, the real trick to speaking two languages consists in managing not to speak one of those languages at a given moment — which is fundamentally a feat of paying attention.

People who speak two languages often outperform monolinguals on general measures of executive function. “[Bilinguals] can pay focused attention without being distracted and also improve in the ability to switch from one task to another,” says Sorace.

2. Empathy

Young children being raised bilingual have to follow social cues to figure out which language to use with which person and in what setting. As a result, says Sorace, bilingual children as young as age 3 have demonstrated a head start on tests of perspective-taking and theory of mind — both of which are fundamental social and emotional skills.

3. Reading (English)

4. School performance and engagement.

Compared with students in English-only classrooms or in one-way immersion, dual-language students have somewhat higher test scores and also seem to be happier in school. Attendance is better, behavioral problems fewer, parent involvement higher.

5. Diversity and integration.

6. Protection against cognitive decline and dementia.

File this away as a very, very long-range payoff. Researchers have found that actively using two languages seems to have a protective effect against age-related dementia — perhaps relating to the changes in brain structure we talked about earlier.

The California Court of Appeal has affirmed the recusal of the Orange County DA’s office from a high-profile murder case, upholding the trial court’s finding that the office had a conflict of interest so severe it was unlikely the defendant would receive a fair trial. The court also noted that the OCDA’s “substantial” failures in turning over evidence showed that it “cannot be relied upon to comply” with its obligations in the case moving forward.

The case involves a decades-long jail informant program run by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. Scott Sanders, the public defender in the DeKraai case that uncovered the program, says that in many Orange County cases, informants held recorded and unrecorded conversations with inmates who were represented by lawyers. This would be a violation of an inmate’s right to counsel. Prosecutors are accused of taking damning evidence gathered by the informants and presenting it in court, while withholding evidence that could benefit the defense.