(Sacramento) – The California State Assembly’s approval on August 16, 2012, of a bill to allow review of life without parole sentences for youth offenders is a step toward justice.
The vote came just weeks after a United States Supreme Court decision barring the mandatory sentencing of juvenile offenders to life without parole. The Senate and governor should now act to bring California in line with the Supreme Court ruling, Human Rights Watch said.
Today was a historic day in California as both the Assembly and the California Supreme Court took concrete steps toward scaling back extreme sentences for children.
The Assembly made significant strides toward justice for children in approving SB 9, the Fair Sentencing for Youth Act, which would allow people sentenced to life in prison without parole as children an opportunity to petition for resentencing, while the California Supreme Court ruled in The People v. Rodrigo Caballero that a long term-of-years sentence, in which a youth would not be eligible for parole during his or her lifetime, is unconstitutional when imposed on youth convicted of non-homicide crimes.
“With today’s ruling in Caballero and the Assembly’s passage of the Fair Sentencing for Youth Act, lawmakers in California have sent a clear message that children are different from adults, and the unique characteristics of children can no longer be ignored in the context of sentencing,” said Jody Kent Lavy, Director & National Coordinator of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth.
The Fair Sentencing for Youth Act would allow people who were under age 18 at the time of their crimes to petition for review of their sentences to determine whether they will receive an opportunity to come before the parole board. If resentenced, they would have to serve a minimum of 25 years in prison before parole eligibility. The bill reflects growing consensus that young people are not simply little adults, and their unique characteristics as children require them to be treated differently than adults.
The Senate and governor should act now to approve the bill and ensure that California’s laws recognize the capacity of children to mature and become rehabilitated and require that their youth be considered in sentencing.
“We urge Governor Brown to follow the lead of the California Assembly and states across the country that are scaling back extreme approaches to youth crime, which disregard what science and common sense tell us about children’s unique capacity to grow and change over time,” said Kent Lavy. “The Fair Sentencing for Youth Act ensures youth are held accountable for their crimes in a way that reflects the distinct characteristics of youth, with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.”
We also applaud today’s unanimous ruling in The People v. Rodrigo Caballero by the California Supreme Court, which found that a 110-year sentence for a young person convicted of attempted murder unconstitutional citing the Graham v. Florida decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court banned life-without-parole sentences for youth convicted of non-homicide crimes. The California Supreme Court found that, like a life-without-parole sentence, this extreme sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The California Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States to rule on the issue of long term-of-years sentences under Graham, and reiterated that youth are not as culpable as adults because they are still growing and maturing.
The case was brought by Rodrigo Caballero, who was sentenced to 110 years in prison after he was convicted of attempted murder. The California Supreme Court ruled that because Caballero was required to serve more than a century in prison, he would not live long enough to “demonstrate growth and maturity” to try to secure his release, as required by Graham.
Today’s ruling comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Miller v. Alabama issued in June, which banned automatic life-without-parole sentences for youth.
“It is heartening to see the courts and legislatures moving in the right direction,” said Kent Lavy. “Children in California, and across the nation, who were once told they were only worthy of certain death in prison now have hope.”
California: Chance for Justice for Youth
California Supreme Court Opinion in The People v. Rodrigo Caballero
By Edwin Desamour
Philadelphia
I am a productive citizen and a committed father who is working to keep kids out of trouble and our streets free of violent crime.
I also faced a possible sentence of life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty when I was only 16. I was convicted of third degree homicide instead of first degree murder and received a lesser sentence and served 8 ½ years behind bars. Since I was released in 1997, I have worked with hundreds of young men, trying to prevent them from entering the criminal justice system.
Five years ago, my colleagues and I founded a nonprofit organization called MIMIC (Men in Motion in the Community) to help such youths. The kids respond intensely to male role models. We believe that supports systems need to be in place for these kids in order to prevent them from making decisions that could lead them to taking someone else’s life and ending up in prison.
All of this is why I support the recent Supreme Court ruling that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for youth constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling also reflects what we all know about teenage brains: They have trouble handling impulses and understanding consequences. Without help, especially when they are surrounded by poverty, violence, and chaos, adolescents sometimes struggle to manage their reckless urges. Sometimes the impact is minor, but at other times the consequences can be deadly, as I know from personal experience.
In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court ruling is especially meaningful because of the large number of youths who received a mandatory life sentence without parole. All of them will now be eligible for new hearings during which judges or juries must consider mitigating circumstances such as their age, history of abuse or neglect and role in the crime. I am hopeful that this will provide many with a second chance.
I remember sitting at a table in the adult correctional facility with about six other youths who were certified as adults. When we started talking about what we wanted to be when we got older, our list was the same as other kids: doctors, police officers, businessmen.
We all laughed, and then for a moment there was silence. What happened to all those hopes and dreams? What went wrong? Then the stories began: abuse in the home, drugs, violence and poverty all around us. We were all good kids but because of our surroundings we were not able to handle peer pressure and make good decisions. Unlike adults, children don’t have the power to escape their negative environments.
I grew up when I was in prison. When I left, I promised some of my friends who were serving life-without-parole that I would never forget them. One of them was a friend from my youth and a co-defendant in the case in which I was convicted. When we went in, he was a teenager. Now he has grey hair and is becoming a middle-aged man.
Before this week’s decision, all he had to look forward to was an eventual death in prison. Now there is hope that he will someday at least be considered for parole.
I live each day with the knowledge that I was involved in an incident where a life was tragically lost. Nothing I do can ever change that. But I have proven that I should not be judged solely by that horrible act. That is not the sum of who I am.
My hope is that this week’s Supreme Court decision will give other young people who have made tragic mistakes the same opportunity.
Edwin Desamour is founder and executive director of Men in Motion in the Community (MIMIC).
New York Times
The Supreme Court’s ruling this week prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of murder is a measured and important step in a trend in juvenile justice begun more than two decades ago. The court left open the possibility that minors under age 18 could be sentenced to life without parole — but only if the sentencing judge has made an individualized finding that such a penalty is appropriate, weighing the defendant’s characteristics and the details of the crime.
The 5-to-4 majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the moderate liberals, held that the mandatory punishment is unconstitutional because it fails “to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”
Minors, the court has said in past cases barring the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for those convicted of nonhomicide crimes, have a less developed sense of responsibility and are more vulnerable to peer pressures. Those critical differences mean juveniles should not necessarily get the same harsh punishment as adults, even when they commit horrible crimes.
To read the entire article, click here.
STATEMENT FROM THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE FAIR SENTENCING OF YOUTH
REGARDING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING REGARDING LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCES FOR YOUTH
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in the companion cases of Jackson v Hobbs and Miller v Alabama that mandatory life-without-parole sentences imposed on children violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.”
This historic ruling holds that it is unconstitutional to sentence any child under age 18 convicted of homicide to a mandatory life-without-parole sentence. Kuntrell Jackson and Evan Miller, both of whom were sentenced to life in prison without parole for crimes committed at 14, are now entitled to new sentencing hearings.
The ruling will affect hundreds of other individuals whose sentences did not take their age or other mitigating factors into account. It requires the lower courts to conduct new sentencing hearings during which judges will have to consider children’s age, life circumstances, and other mitigating factors.
Comments from Jody Kent Lavy, Director & National Coordinator
We applaud the Court for its ruling today, which rightly recognizes the grave injustice in mandatorily sentencing children to die in prison. In 29 states, youth convicted of certain crimes have received mandatory life-without-parole sentences, which effectively remove any discretion on the part of a judge or jury to consider relevant factors at sentencing such as the youth’s age, history of neglect or abuse, or role in the crime.
The Justices affirm in their ruling what science has proven: children are fundamentally different from adults. “Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features – among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually extricate himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional. It neglects the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him . . . And finally, this mandatory punishment disregards the possibility of rehabilitation even when the circumstances most suggest it.”
This ruling reflects the continued recognition of the Court that because children are different from adults, they must be treated accordingly in the context of sentencing. In 2005, the Supreme Court prohibited the death penalty for children younger than 18, acknowledging that youthfulness is an important factor in determining whether a punishment is cruel and unusual. Then in 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of sentencing children to life in prison without parole when their crimes did not result in death.
Today’s historic decision brings our nation closer in line with the rest of the world, as the United States alone sentences children to life in prison without the possibility of parole. We are heartened that the Court has brought hope to those who were told as teens that they deserved nothing more than certain death in prison. We know young people have a unique capacity to grow and mature over time, and therefore should never be sentenced to die in prison. Instead, children should be held accountable in an age-appropriate way that focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration in to society.
###
Contact:
James Ross
(202) 289-4671
[email protected]
The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an historic ruling in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for all children 17 or younger convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. Kuntrell Jackson and Evan Miller, sentenced to life in prison without parole at 14, are now entitled to new sentencing hearings. Today’s ruling will affect hundreds of individuals whose sentences did not take their age or other mitigating factors into account.
Read more here.
By Trymaine Lee, Huffington Post, May 15, 2012
Bobby Hines was fresh out of eighth grade when he and two older boys confronted a suspected drug dealer in Detroit whom they believed had stolen a friend’s coat. The confrontation turned into an argument and one of Hines’ buddies pulled out a gun and shot and killed the man.
The shooter was later charged with second-degree murder and given the possibility of parole. Hines, who was 15 at the time, was charged with felony murder for participating in a robbery felony murder that resulted in a homicide.
Although Hines never pulled a trigger or even held a weapon that day, he was sentenced, under Michigan law, to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was offered a plea bargain deal, with the chance to serve 20 to 40 years if he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of second-degree murder. But the middle-schooler simply didn’t understand the deal, according to Deborah LaBelle, who authored a report released on Tuesday about the systematic disadvantages facing juveniles who are placed within the adult criminal justice system.
And today, 22 years later, Hines is still behind bars.
By John Barnes, MLive, May 16, 2012
A new report released today claims Michigan’s justice system is riddled with disparities in the way it treats teen offenders facing the state’s severest punishment, life in prison without parole.
Lawyers representing the minors are more likely to have checkered records and prosecutors are less likely to consider reducing charges if the victim was white, according to the report.
“In fact, young people in Michigan are more likely to receive longer sentences than adults for comparable offenses,” said the report, a joint effort of the Michigan-based Second Chances 4 Youth and the ACLU of Michigan.
By Maggie Clark, Stateline, June 17, 2012
In 1993, in what was called Denver’s “summer of violence,” high-profile gang warfare attributed to youth “super-predators” seemed to overtake the city. Drive-by shootings were a common occurrence. Then-Governor Roy Romer called a special session of the Colorado legislature and rolled out his “iron fist” plan to address the violence, which included giving prosecutors the full authority to transfer youths under 18 directly into adult court.
Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (EIN 27-3761788) is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
