Vermont eliminates life without parole for kids

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin has signed H. 62 into law, eliminating life without parole as a sentencing option for children and adding to the movement for reform in the ways that we hold young people accountable when they are convicted of serious crimes.

“I am appalled that the U.S. is the only country in the world that still sentences juveniles to a life sentence without the possibility of release or parole, and currently 2,500 individuals in the U.S. are sentenced to die in prison for crimes they committed as children,” said Vermont Rep. Barbara Rachelson, who sponsored the bill.  “While I am proud to say that Vermont has never handed out this sentence, the signing of H.62 will take this crime off the books and assure that it will never happen.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, drawing in part on child development science, has ruled that children are “constitutionally different” from adults and should not be subject to our country’s harshest penalties. In 2005, the Court abolished the juvenile death penalty. In 2010, the Court ruled in Graham v. Florida that it is unconstitutional to impose a life-without-parole sentence upon a child for a non-homicide crime. And in 2012’s Miller v. Alabama, the Court ruled it is a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to impose a life-without-parole sentence for a crime committed by a person younger than 18.

“Vermont has taken a great step forward in recognizing that children should be treated differently than adults when they are convicted of serious crimes,” said James Dold, Advocacy Director for the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. “We are grateful for the leadership of Vermont’s legislature and Attorneys General in ending the practice of sentencing children to die in prison.”

The Vermont Attorneys Generals Office, along with numerous advocates from across the state supported the legislation.

A growing number of lawmakers and opinion leaders — including President Jimmy Carter, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, columnist George Will and Pope Francis — have called for an end to these sentences. More than 150 national and international organizations have also called for reforms.

Earlier this year, the American Bar Association passed Resolution 107C calling on all states and the federal government to eliminate life without parole sentences for children. ABA President, William C. Hubbard, called the sentence a severe violation of human rights when imposed upon children. “The ABA applauds those states that have already taken steps to reform their laws and urges other states to pass similar reforms as soon as practicable,” he stated following the resolution’s adoption.

Vermont is the 12th state to eliminate life-without-parole sentences for children and the first state to pass such legislation following the adoption of the ABA’s resolution in February.

 

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Miller retroactivity case

On March 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Montgomery v. Louisiana, which is expected to clarify whether the Miller v. Alabama decision should be applied retroactively. A retroactive decision in Montgomery could allow thousands of individuals currently serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed as children an opportunity for resentencing and a second chance at life.

The petitioner in this case, Henry Montgomery, was sentenced to life without parole for a crime that occurred in 1963, two weeks after his 17th birthday. He has been in prison for more than 50 years.

In June 2012, Miller abolished mandatory life-without-parole sentences for youth. Not all states have applied the ruling retroactively, which has led to inconsistent treatment of individuals from state to state.  To date, the high courts of 10 states have ruled that Miller applies retroactively to everyone serving the sentence. Those states are Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming. Four state supreme courts — including Louisiana, where Mr. Montgomery is serving — have ruled thatMiller does not apply retroactively. Louisiana also is among the five states that have sentenced the majority of the approximately 2,500 people who were sentenced to life without parole as children.

This is the second case concerning Miller retroactivity the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this year.  In the first, Toca vLouisiana, the petitioner, George Toca, had been sentenced to mandatory life without parole for allegedly shooting his friend during a botched robbery at the age of 17. After the Court agreed to hear the case, prosecutors offered Mr. Toca a plea agreement, which vacated his murder conviction. He accepted the agreement and was released from prison in January.

It is vital that the U.S. Supreme Court resolve the question of Miller retroactivity to ensure that all individuals serving life without parole are afforded equal treatment under the law.  We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will further uphold the principle that children are different and that all children sentenced to die in prison deserve a second chance.

Read the petition in Montgomery v. Louisiana

Read more about the case

 

Photo by Roland Meinecke

Experts respond to the guidelines for representing youth facing life

full1Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence are the first-ever guidelines for representing children who face our country’s harshest penalty. These Guidelines were drafted in close collaboration with attorneys and advocates from across the nation.

Read more about Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence

Florida Supreme Court orders new sentences in juvenile cases

A 33-year-old woman serving life without parole for the murder of a Panama City-area cab driver when she was 15 will get a new sentence under a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday.

The court ordered new sentencing hearings for Rebecca Falcon and three other people who committed felonies as juveniles in order to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings that say juveniles can’t be sent to prison for life if they haven’t killed someone and mandatory life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional for juvenile murderers.

The Florida high court is also giving anyone who received life sentences for crimes committed as juveniles two years to seek new sentences, which could affect about 200 people.

Read More

By Brendan Farrington

March 19, 2015

Experts respond to the guidelines for representing youth facing life

full10Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence are the first-ever guidelines for representing children who face our country’s harshest penalty. These Guidelines were drafted in close collaboration with attorneys and advocates from across the nation.

Read more about Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence

OP-ED: New Guidelines for Juvenile Defense Attorneys 1 Step Forward for Young Defendants

Today, the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth issues the first-ever guidelines for defending children facing our country’s most extreme sentence. “Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence” (“Guidelines”) seeks to articulate the standard established by Miller v. Alabama for legal representation of children facing life sentences.

The first juvenile court was created in the United States more than a century ago with the recognition that children are developmentally different from adults and possess a unique capacity to grow and change. Yet today, many children are tried in adult court and are too often treated like adults — by prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys alike.

Read More

By Jeff Howard

March 11, 2015

Experts respond to the guidelines for representing youth facing life

fullat6Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence are the first-ever guidelines for representing children who face our country’s harshest penalty. These Guidelines were drafted in close collaboration with attorneys and advocates from across the nation.

Read more about Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence

Experts respond to the guidelines for representing youth facing life

fullat5.Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence are the first-ever guidelines for representing children who face our country’s harshest penalty. These Guidelines were drafted in close collaboration with attorneys and advocates from across the nation.

Read more about Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence

Experts respond to the guidelines for representing youth facing life

Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence are the first-ever guidelines for representing children who face our country’s harshest penalty. These Guidelines were drafted in close collaboration with attorneys and advocates from across the nation.

Read more about Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence

Experts respond to the guidelines for representing youth facing life

fullAt3Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence are the first-ever guidelines for representing children who face our country’s harshest penalty. These Guidelines were drafted in close collaboration with attorneys and advocates from across the nation.

Read more about Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence