Just one year ago in Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life without the opportunity for parole for a non-homicide crime committed when they were under age 18. The Court concluded that these offenders should have an opportunity to have their sentences reviewed, and the logic of the Court's opinion extends to every young person convicted of a serious crime.
I was a prosecutor for 12 years. During that time, I prosecuted a wide variety of crimes, ranging from international terrorism to securities fraud, from domestic violence and sexual abuse to homicide. I prosecuted cases in which offenders received very substantial sentences. I am proud of my work as a prosecutor and I have no doubt that criminal punishment is critical to keeping communities safe.
One of the defendants I prosecuted committed murder when he was 17-years-old. He gunned down his victim and shot him 17 times in cold blood in broad daylight in the middle of a residential street. The same defendant had committed another murder before he turned 18. For these crimes, he was sentenced to consecutive terms of years that were so long as to be tantamount to life imprisonment, and he will never be released. And, in that case, that was a just result.
But at the same time, there are other youthful defendants who have been sentenced to unjust sentences of life without the opportunity for parole. For example, a 15-year-old boy in Chicago, "Peter A," on instructions from his older brother, helped steal a van so that his brother could drive to the home of two individuals who stole drugs and money from the brother's apartment. Peter stayed in the van while two others went inside. While Peter waited in the van, one of the men who had gone into the home shot and killed two people. Peter was sentenced to life without parole, even though the judge said at sentencing that he wished he could impose a lower sentence and described Peter as "a bright lad" with "rehabilitative potential." But the sentence was mandatory and the judge had no discretion or choice to sentence Peter otherwise. Peter is now 29 and has spent nearly half of his life in prison. During that time, he has obtained his G.E.D. and completed a correspondence paralegal course. He has an exemplary record in prison, receiving a disciplinary ticket only once in the past six years (for possessing an extra pillow and extra cereal in his cell). But no matter how much Peter changes in prison, he will serve the rest of his life in prison without having even the possibility of asking to be released, much less getting out.
That is the critical fact to keep in mind about those seeking to end life without parole for juveniles. No one is arguing that any particular individual should be let out of prison. Ending juvenile life without parole merely leaves open the possibility that a child who commits a crime can petition for release later in life, if he can demonstrate that he is remorseful, has rehabilitated, and will not reoffend. Parole authorities can and should be trusted to make informed, reasoned decisions regarding the release and continued incarceration of inmates petitioning for parole.
This approach makes sense as a matter of justice and economics. Juvenile offenders have diminished culpability: a view supported by science -- and common sense, as anyone can attest to who remembers his or her years as a teenager. Juvenile offenders also have increased potential for rehabilitation and, in fact, even without intervention, most offenders age out of crime commission. Thus, in certain instances, spending on extremely lengthy terms of incarceration on juveniles would be wasteful.
Extending the reasoning in Graham, so that it applies to every young person, will have no significant adverse impact on public safety and will allow for flexibility in juvenile sentencing. This will reduce incarceration costs and support the possibility for rehabilitation in young offenders. As a society we can no longer afford to declare youth worthless and sentence them to die in prison without giving them an opportunity to have their sentence reviewed. Before Graham's next anniversary, policy makers must implement reforms to end the practice of sentencing youth to life without parole.
Anthony S. Barkow is the Executive Director of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University School of Law.
They have done terrible things. They should be held accountable. But the US criminal justice system should do that in a way that recognizes that these are kids—sorry to use that term if it’s offensive, but that’s what we call people under the age of eighteen. There’s a way to hold kids accountable without making them die in prison.
Parole hearings.
That’s not a guarantee of release. Victims and victims’ families should weigh in. Why is that so horrible? Every other country in the world does this. (And juveniles’ lives can’t be bargaining chips just because the parole system isn’t ideal.)
Do we really think we’re right and everyone else is wrong?
The infamous Felony Murder law that does not exist anywhere else in the world. The reason why it was "mandatory" was that the conviction was for Capital Murder and the idea is that if people are involved in a Felony and someone happens to be killed, whether deliberately or not, then the whole lot of the people are said to be guilty of Capital Murder and all the need to prove is that they intended to be in on a Felony. It's barbaric and US jurisdictions are the only ones that still do it. Under this law, the police can gun someone down and the group of "felons" get capital murder. A vigliante can kill someone with the same result. The police can kill someone chasing the suspects by running them down with their car and again it's capital murder for those being chased. They even considered using this on someone when two news helicopters crashed in Arizona reporting on the police chase!
Same penalties for EVERYONE. Not lenient penalties for the rich and goofy tough for the poor.
"Just one year ago in Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life without the opportunity for parole for a non-homicide crime committed when they were under age 18."
"Just one year ago in Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life without the opportunity for parole for a non-homicide crime committed when they were under age 18."
NON-HOMICIDE. Meaning we are NOT talking about murder.
There are plenty of gang members that order their juveniles to commit murder or be party to committing murder because they tell them they can't be tried as adults or that if they are caught and convicted the punishment will be short and light because of their ages. The only way to stop that is to lock them up. When you start cutting these deals then you play into the propaganda the gangs are spreading.
For every reasonable story you can list, there are 10 against it. Unless you're going to cherry pick, you'll be letting violent felons out who will go back to their gang lives and kill again. Probably several times before being caught and convicted AGAIN.
Decide what our penal system is for. Is it for revenge and punishment? Is it for protecting society? Is it for rehabilitation. Until you know what it is supposed to accomplish, standardize it, and then evaluate effectiveness to make them accountable, it's a waste of money. Oh, and does any of that sound familiar? That's right. Since the penal system is sucking money from the school system, let them be held to the same accountability standards.
And AGAIN (as so many here seem to lack reading comprehension), the court ruling does NOT apply to HOMICIDES! So he wouldn't be let out to "kill again".
***
We can never know. Are you willing to have on your conscience those who are let out and do reoffend?
The Nature v/s Nurture issues always come up in these and knowing a person's history having to deal with them on a daily basis gives the ones who deal with them on a regular basis something more than the public opinion to go by.
People look at the crime v/s the punishment and sometimes the crime fits the punishment and then some states the punishment is much more harsh than the crime. THEN, you have states where it seems like they want to let EVERYONE out.. No matter what the case was. Lawmakers have the ability to change it and people voting for these lawmakers have the choice to either vote them out or vote for someone to come into office and change it. Good luck to those who feel they can change it.
***
Given the decisions they have made in the past, I don't trust them at all.