Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (EIN 27-3761788) is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
Editorial: Children in Prison for Life
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.
CFSY issues statement on Supreme Court ruling in Jackson and Miller
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]
Equal Justice Initiative: U.S. Supreme Court Bans Mandatory Life-Without-Parole Sentences for Children Convicted of Homicide
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.
Juvenile Offenders Sentenced To Life Can Face Harsher Treatment Than Adults: Report
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.
New report: Racial inequity, other flaws contribute to Michigan's many juveniles lifers
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.
States Have Second Thoughts About Juveniles in Adult Court
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.
Finding redemption after 18 years
By Richard Haws, Des Moines Register, June 8, 2012
Any state that’s suffered through the most brutal murder spree in its history wouldn’t be expected to show compassion for any of the crime’s perpetrators, but that’s what Nebraska did. It’s relevant to today because the U.S. Supreme Court this summer will be addressing the same question that Nebraska faced — whether juvenile murderers should die in prison from a state-imposed death sentence.
Many Iowans will remember the Nebraska horror.
Michigan Finally Eyeing Changes To Lawyers For Poor
By Carrie Johnson, National Public Radio, June 14, 2012
Lawyers on all sides agree the system enshrined nearly 50 years ago that gives all defendants the right to a lawyer is not working. The Justice Department calls it a crisis — such a big problem that it’s been doling out grants to improve how its adversaries perform in criminal cases.
Consider Michigan: Five times since the 1980s, independent groups have called on Michigan to change the way it pays lawyers for the poor. Each time, state officials have done nothing. And a 2008 study by a legal nonprofit association said the state’s indigent defense system had reached a “constitutional crisis.”
Life Without Parole at Issue
By Rhonda Cook, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 18, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court has already said — twice — that teenage criminals are not the same as their adult counterparts.
Now the high court is expected to rule, perhaps today, whether it is constitutional to sentence teenage killers to life without parole, considering that teenagers’ brains are not yet fully developed.
Life without parole is a punishment Georgia and 38 other states have imposed on 2,700 juvenile killers, and the court ruling could impact the punishment of Jonathan Bun, who was 17 when he murdered Clayton County sheriff’s Deputy Rick Daly last July.