Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Mister P I concur with the Judge on this. Not guilty of cash for kids. It appears from this documentary that there were no ongoing payments for keeping the facilities full. The Judge had a reputation of sending juveniles down (prior to the decision to close the original facility).Guilty of bribery and corruption yes. Guilty of robbing the juveniles of their right to representation, but that was not on the charge sheet.The judge does describe an incident in his youth where he said his father clobbered him for attempting to steal a car. Would you rather get punched in the mouth or be sent to lock-up? That is what I would like to ask that creep. The problem lies with the system. Two million children arrested each year; 95% are for non violent crimes. This reflects the adult prison population in the USA which has the highest rate of incarceration in the world and more prisoners than the rest of the world combined. Many of these prisons are privately owned slave plantations. The justice system is corrupted by prison for profit. The parole system ensures a rapid recycling of ex cons back into the system and more profits for prison owners (like Bill Gates) The USA is a corrupted violent society. It's collapse is imminent. The facts at the end of the documentary are a sad indictment of the US and it's propensity to violence

mhendroff having just watched this doc i am left feeling that it could have been more complete.As others have pointed out - no mention of the Prison/Detention Centre for profit angle, which caused the issue in the first place. No mention on what happened to the owner of the facility who paid them the 'finder's fee'.I guess that would have probably dragged the running time too long, and the topic has been covered elsewhere already (most notably in my opinion in the excellent "The house i live in"). But still a couple of minutes to explain the root cause (apart from greed) would have helped.Also - no real scientific explanation on the reason why kids should not be treated as adults to begin with. And no explanation why the USA did not sign the UN Charter? Having said that - it tried to be a well balanced piece - but the most serious flaw to me was the failure to mention the yacht and luxury condos the 2 judges bought with the money. And how they channeled the funds through various accounts and companies so that it would be well hidden. I had to dig this bit of information up myself after viewing the doc. This would negate the small part of me that actually still had some sympathy for judge Ciavarella after his tearful passage at the end of the documentary. He did not just 'pay some debts and provide for his kids'. Plain greed.

Walt-Most This is a beautifully made film about the huge judicial scandal that became known as "kids for cash." Basically, two judges in Pennsylvania secretly received millions of dollars from the owners of a for-profit prison for juveniles in their jurisdiction, while at the same time pulling strings to give the prison a monopoly on juvenile detentions and (in the case of one of the judges) sentencing hundreds (literally, hundreds) of juveniles to years of incarceration in the same prison, without due process and often for truly minor misbehavior.The documentary tells its story through interviews, news footage, and a limited number of title cards. There is no narrator, and the voice(s) of the interviewer(s) are not heard. The focus is on five of the hundreds of teenagers who were imprisoned in this scam: Charlie Balasavage, Justin Bodnar, Hillary Transue, Edward Kenzakoski, and Amanda Lorah. The interviews with the victims are heartbreaking. We also hear from the two judges (Ciavarella and Conahan), who allowed themselves to be interviewed for the film while the federal cases against them were pending. In some ways, this footage, while infuriating to watch, was the most interesting aspect of the film. Among the other interviewees are Terrie Morgan, the reporter who mainly covered the scandal for the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader (and who serves as a de facto narrator), and Marsha Levick and Robert Schwartz, two attorneys with the non-profit Juvenile Law Center who worked to have the cases affected by the scandal vacated.The events covered here present dangerously rich material for a filmmaker. Should the story be about money? About power? About the juvenile justice system in general? The one weakness of the film is that it moves around among all of these themes without clearly digging into any of them. The opening and closing title sequences suggest that the third, broadest theme is the focus. But if so, why use the damage caused by two judges who were clearly corrupt as the vehicle?Despite that flaw, the film deserves 8 stars for its excellent production values and, most of all, the powerful interview footage, which brings home the effects the scam has had on so many lives.

David Ferguson Greetings again from the darkness. Focusing on "the honorable" Judge Ciavarelli and Judge Conahan of Pennsylvania, director Robert May (The War Tapes) provides some insight into a despicable miscarriage of justice that the media labeled Kids for Cash. It's a catchy phrase that can be defined as a convergence of some less-than-favorable traits: abuse of power, over-the-top greed, and a collapse of trust in the juvenile justice system.The talking head approach is on full display, and proves quite effective here. We get interviews and statements from attorneys, journalists, citizens, a particularly vocal radio talk show, and surprisingly, even Judge Ciavarelli and Judge Conahan. The biggest wallop comes from the words and body language of those most directly impacted – the kids and their parents.For those unfamiliar with the story, Ciavarelli and Conahan were charged in various felonies related to their conspiratorial actions that led to the closing of a County facility, the fundraising for a new private facility, and the subsequent sentencing of thousands of kids to ensure the facility remained at capacity. The financial rewards for these two men included "finder's fees" ($2 million for Ciavarelli), or what most others would term bribes or kickbacks.The actions of Judge Ciavarelli are defended by his staunch campaign strategy of "Zero Tolerance" in the wake of the Columbine tragedy. Once elected, his frequent speeches at local schools reinforced his commitment to zero tolerance, and his promise to severely penalize any kid that ran afoul of the law. In theory, most of this sounds like a formidable stance, however, the real problem occurs when the test of reasonableness is absent in the charging of teenagers with a crime. This is where the film falls a bit short. The kids going to court makes a dramatic story, but the missing link is HOW does this happen when most of these cases come across as schoolyard dust-ups, typical teenager antics (a MySpace page), and simply part of the maturing process for adolescents? There is an acknowledgment that most young teenagers don't have the necessary decision-making skills or sense of judgment to handle these situations. The point is well made that teenagers are not just little adults … there is much growth to come, both physically and intellectually. This leads to the real question: why aren't we doing a better job of allowing kids to develop their judgment and dispute resolution skills. The pizza shop guy in the movie says "we all got in playground fights". He's right! But these days, that gets the kid (even first time offenders) arrested and possibly sent away … where they come back hardened and angry. This approach is not working - though, I'm certainly not suggesting mass playground fights. There has to be a better way.With so much attention to the (then) upcoming trials of the two judges, the film's tone shifts to one of revenge and reckoning. It's an emotional and powerful time, and neither of the judges come across as believable or likable. In fact, Conahan strikes a plea bargain, and Ciavarelli defiantly states he is not guilty of "kids for cash" … AFTER being found guilty of 12 felonies on related issues! His true character shines through.The film expertly tells the story … often very personal stories … of some of those impacted by the Kids for Cash scandal. It raises many questions on numerous topics, though most are overshadowed by the focus on the judges' trials. Near the end, many statistics are displayed – some of which could support their own documentary. The real impact of a documentary is judged by its call to action – the ability to get people involved in finding answers and solutions. Let's hope the impact is profound, even if it's too late for some.