An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Should Kids Get Life Without Parole?

My answer is NO! The Supreme Court will hear appeals from two juvenile offenders on Monday arguing the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment forbids life in prison for crimes other than homicide. (The court ruled in the 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision that it was unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for any minor who committed murder.)

SCOTUSblog has a comprehensive preview of the cases which includes this analysis:

The critical issue for the Court, having already decided that there are constitutional differences between juvenile and adult criminals, is whether that difference counts the same – or less – when the punishment a youth faces is not execution. It is not likely to abandon altogether its reliance just four years ago upon research data supporting those differences. But it must now reexamine that data as it considers whether life with no chance of parole can really be distinguished from death, and, perhaps a more difficult inquiry, does the distinction between the two vary with the age of the offender?

If the meaning of the Eighth Amendment is the underlying constitutional question, the closely related moral question for the Justices is whether a denial of any chance at rehabilitation – or future freedom – is close to being the loss of “life,” at least in some dimensions of what “life” means. As judges, the Court’s members will want to be comfortable defining the consequences of that denial in constitutional terms, but they will feel the tug of the moral question as they do so.

There are about 2,500 juveniles (ranging in age from 13 to 17) currently sentenced to life in prison in the United States. According to Human Rights Watch, in the rest of the world there are about a dozen.

There are just over 100 people in the world serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed as a juvenile in which no one was killed. All are in the United States. Seventy-seven are in Florida.

Why Florida?

Mr. Snyder, the state legislator, put it this way: “Instead of the Sunshine State, it was the Gun-shine State.”

In response, the state moved more juveniles into adult courts, increased sentences and eliminated parole for capital crimes.

Thomas K. Petersen, a semi-retired judge in Miami who spent a decade hearing cases in juvenile court, said that the state’s reaction was out of proportion to the problem and that it has lately failed to take account of changed circumstances. [...]

Shay Bilchik, who served as a state prosecutor in Miami from 1977 to 1993 and is now the director of the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown, said the state took a wrong turn… He said later research convinced him that his office’s approach was much too aggressive and had not served to deter crime.

“My biggest regret,” Mr. Bilchik said, “is that during the time I was in the prosecutor’s office, we were under the false impression that we were insuring greater public safety when we were not.”

Newsweek:

The cases the Supreme Court will hear are Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, involving cases of rape and robbery by a then 13-year-old and a 17-year-old, respectively. If the court determines these sentences are unconstitutional, Joe Sullivan, now 33, and Terrance Graham, now 22, currently serving life sentences without the possibility of parole, could each be granted a new hearing to determine a revised sentence.

If the court finds the sentence unconstitutional, it could give them the right to go before a parole board to determine whether they are fit to assimilate back into society. It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card, human-rights advocates are quick to note. Some juvenile offenders could still be forced to spend life behind bars, while others are set free early. “We don’t let them vote or enter into contracts, but we are subjecting kids to sentences that are for a mature adult,” says de la Vega. “I think the red flag is, How could we be the only country in the world doing this? Why are we treating our kids so badly?”

RELATED: From the devastatingly powerful 2007 Frontline documentary, When Kids Get Life, this clip on culpable adolescent brains & the Supermax. It describes a Colorado parole hearing that “does not permit participation of private counsel” and in which testimony is confidential and “shall not be revealed to the offender at any time”:

YouTube Preview Image

Watch online. The documentary tells five stories from one state; Colorado.

  • Leonidas
    via Wiki:

    Under the federal criminal code, however, with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987, parole has been abolished for all sentences handed down by the federal system, including life sentences, so a life sentence from a federal court will result in imprisonment for the life of the defendant, unless a pardon or reprieve is granted by the President.

    I support this. I do not believe in parole. Commutation of sentence, is perfectly fine, but those on parole are actually still considered to be serving a sentence, I'd rather see them be locked up if their crimes merited a life sentence. If they have shown themselves to be truly reformed let a commutation of sentence or pardon be granted, not a parole.
  • AustinRoth
    It depends on what is classified as a minor. 17? 16? 18?

    21? The drinking age is 21. Maybe that is the new 'minor'.

    You can join the military at 17, but you cannot be a legal adult for the purpose of major felony sentencing?

    And if life is not allowed, is a 99 year sentence? If not, what is the maximum sentence? Until they are a legal adult?

    Rape, mutilate, and kill a 12 year old girl when you are 17 years, 11 months of age, and get off with time served by the time your trial is over, because you were a minor when you committed the crime?
  • DLS
    "21? The drinking age is 21. Maybe that is the new 'minor'. "

    HA, HA, HA.

    In the view of Nanci Pelosi and House lib-Dem health care "reformers," a "minor" is through the age of 27.

    She reminded us all of that, in her post-vote press conference last night.

    HA, HA, HA.

    * * *

    As for the subject of the thread: We know about maturation of the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex and of judgment. (Yet, lefties constantly demand lowering of the age for things like not only drinking, but also voting, down often at least to age sixteen. Why?)

    That is not the only issue at stake. Also at issue is the nature of serious crimes committed, as well as the obvious fact about humanity, that after age 6-7 young people are expected to know the difference between right and wrong. Another item: murder is not the only crime that merits consideration for life imprisonment, or death, obviously. Nobody can claim with a straight face, or imply, that only murder is such a crime at issue here.
  • JWindish
    Young people are reflection of their parents and the culture into which they are born. Maturity is a complex gradual biological and learning process. There are difference between physical, emotional, and intellectual maturity, both across age groups and individuals. The law draws a single line, if for no other reason, because it's easier that way.

    By the logic of the comments so far, these kids would be better off being put to death. What I read here is that they should pay for their offenses. I see payment as pointless. My goal is that they not commit a crime again. Our system, as it stand now, serves only to warehouse and train hardened criminals.

    My interpretation of "cruel and unusual," indeed any interpretation other than that of the courts', is irrelevant. But a life spent in prison seems more cruel than a life cut short through a quick execution. I wouldn't be surprised to find you agree a quick execution is preferable. And I wouldn't be surprised if a culture dominated by people with that view is a violent, criminal, and cruel one.
  • JeffersonDavis
    JWindish is correct in that our penal system is a joke. It does not punish and it does not rehabilitate. There are exceptions of course, but if rehabilitation is your aim, then why is the rate of repeat-offenders so high? If punishment and deterrence is your aim, then why make prison more comfortable than most American's homes, complete with cable, a gym, and free eduational opportunities?

    Busting big rocks into little rocks for 20 years would keep the repeat-offender rate down. Make prison a bleak place to which no one wants to return. Then and only then, would I possibly drop my support of the death penalty.
  • JWindish
    Sorry, Jeff, you're vision of what a prison is like bears no resemblance to those I have visited in four states. Maybe where you live they're country clubs; they're not where I live. A television with cable serving dozens of men does not a country club make.

    What they are is staffed by under-payed and under-trained people (or at least people whose training is not informed by current research) where violent, predatory culture predominates, with only the most meager of rehabilitative efforts - though, admittedly, I very much admire those who work there and are making the effort.

    In that place, the instinct to survive couples with a vengeful contempt for the society that put them there, and then releases them with no means to make it on the outside. And we're surprised that the recidivism rate is not Jeff's imagined low rate, but rather horrendously high?

    Read it and weep.
  • ProfElwood
    We obviously use prisons for too many reasons, because we mix check-kiting people, and weed-smokers in with violent criminals (I know that there are different prisons, but the principle is the same). The biggest problem here is how can we effectively deal with reform and yet keep the costs down, since they're already the largest part of many state's budgets, and many of those states aren't close to meeting federal guidelines. I can offer a few suggestions, but it's still not enough:
    1. Find alternatives for non-violent criminals. I'd prefer to decriminalize the vices, of course, but back in the real world, home detention has started to make a small difference here.
    2. Work. It doesn't have to be pointless. Some states have used prisoners in place of employees, for instance, to man the tourism lines. The idea of discouraging crime by making prisons miserable places hasn't actually worked in any place, or at any time, that I know of. But work, in and of itself, seems to be an effective therapy.
    3. Related back to work, if a prisoner can earn money, use part of it to pay back the victim (or the victim's family), and allow the prisoner to keep part of the income to get started with when they get out, at least if they're over 18.
  • Rudi
    One of the youths in the SCOTUS case is 13.
    The "Why Florida" link has another link that 18% of minors in Florida prisons serving life are 13-15. Even China and Iran don't do this...
  • DLS
    "Busting big rocks into little rocks for 20 years"

    On the minds of many, no doubt, but lost in this discussion (in part because it is not central or essential) is that this is about the right time to use (20-25 years) for "long term" sentences, for various serious crimes. Aside from the practical coincidence that these sentences frequently would be given to youth, which would remove them from endangering society for the rest of their younger, more aggressive and violence-prone years, this is (as has been addressed to the extent people can find literature that manages to address this subject) about the right amount of time for any "long term" period, not only for removal of society for serious crime, but for things like long-term financial agreements (including the longest period of government bonds), of things like bankruptcies and criminal records for expungement later, and for the longest terms of elected offices in government.

    * * *

    Rudi: Common sense and sound judgment should prevail. Age 6-7 is the "age of reason" and expectation of distinguishing between right and wrong, but we don't expect to execute or imprison for life anybody that young (this isn't old England, hanging little pickpockets or shoplifters). Age 12 or onward is where serious crimes merit serious sentences, or around the pre-teen or pre-pubescent to pubescent threshold. From there on, just as rights and privileges grow, so should responsibilities and penalties for crime -- obviously.
  • Rudi
    Common sense like this(?):
    http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/profiles/annino/...
    Kenneth Young:
    Profile of a Florida Juvenile Sentenced to Life without Parole for Non-Homicide
    Kenneth Young,25 now 24 years old, is serving four life without parole sentences for
    three armed robberies which occurred within a month’s time in the year 2000 in and around
    Tampa, Florida. During this period Kenneth turned 15 years old. When Kenneth was 14
    years old, his mother’s 25 year-old drug dealer, Jacques Bethea, told him that his mother
    owed a three thousand dollar drug debt. This drug dealer threatened Kenneth that if he did
    not participate in these robberies his mother would be harmed.
    Kenneth’s part in these robberies was to take the money and the surveillance tapes,
    while the drug dealer held a gun on the clerk and made the demands. No shots were ever
    fired. Kenneth did not have a prior criminal history. The 25 year-old drug dealer had an
    extensive criminal history. The drug dealer received one life without parole sentence; in
    contrast, Kenneth received four life without parole sentences.

    No previous criminal record and he didn't use the gun...
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC