PBS Need to Know
The Supreme Court ruled last month that juveniles can no longer be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for non-homicide crimes. Need to Know looks at the case of Joe Sullivan, who was convicted to life in jail at the age of 13.
The Courier-Journal Editorial Board
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional for juveniles convicted of crimes not involving homicide to be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility for parole. The ruling effectively strikes down laws in 37 states and the District of Columbia that allow such sentences.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, rightly called it cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment, to impose sentences that do not offer juvenile offenders “some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.”
By Emily Bazelon
Appearing before the Supreme Court, a lawyer with a client on death row will almost always use the “death is different” argument—that, because capital punishment is irrevocable, people sentenced to die deserve extra protection from the law. After today, thanks to a new Supreme Court decision, lawyers with clients under 18 sentenced to life without parole—and surely other harsh punishments—will argue that juveniles are different, too.
In a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled Monday that under the Eighth Amendment’s bar against cruel and unusual punishment, states may no longer sentence juveniles to life without parole. The decision came in the case of Terrance Graham, who was already serving probation for robbery when, at age 17, he went into a house with two 20-year-old men and robbed a man at gunpoint. The court’s 6-to-3 decision makes it seem as if striking down the sentence of life without parole—for Graham and all the offenders like him—was relatively easy. With Kennedy, at first glance, is Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the court’s four liberal-moderates: Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and John Paul Stevens.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 17, 2010
Contact Allison Conyers at 202-612-3214 or [email protected]
“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court is a tremendous outcome for youth across the nation. In Graham v. Florida the court ruled that sentencing youth who did not commit murder to life without parole is unconstitutional. This is a significant reaffirmation by the Court that youth are fundamentally different than adults and should be held accountable in an age-appropriate way.
Terrance Graham is one of more than 2,500 people serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as teenagers in the United States–the only country in the world that sentences people under 18 to die in prison. Research reiterates what we all know from our own experience –young people do change and grow and because of this, are great candidates for rehabilitation. Research shows that 90 to 95% of young offenders grow out of criminal behavior.
Dozens of other juveniles sentenced to life without parole are now entitled to relief, including Joe Sullivan, whose case also was argued on this issue. Mr. Sullivan will now apply for resentencing under the Court’s ruling in Graham, along with Terrance Graham and dozens of other individuals who committed crimes other than murder when they were under 18 years of age.
The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth works to end the practice of sentencing any young person to life without parole. We should never be in the practice of giving up on our youth—many of whom are victims of crimes themselves. Instead we should strive to make our communities safer through programs that provide opportunities for youth to learn from their mistakes.
When youth are convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison, we should check in on them later in life to determine whether they may safely return to our communities, rather than declaring them worthless and stripping them of all hope and opportunity for rehabilitation. We have a responsibility to reform our sentencing laws to reflect our values and the special characteristics of youth, and bring an end to this deplorable United States practice.”
-###-
For research and to learn more about youth sentenced to die in prison in the United States, visit our site cfsy.org.
By R. Dwayne Betts
The inside of a cell will try to erase you. Efrén Paredes, Jr. knows that, just as his life sentence has also taught him how time can relentlessly add up each day, without any hope for release. Convicted for murder and robbery at the age of 15, Paredes’s life should trouble us all. But the really troubling question isn’t the nature of his crimes, but rather why — after two decades — he still sits inside a cell in a Michigan prison.
It’s hard to imagine what that much time does to a person. Harder still to imagine how Paredes, incarcerated at 15, has in over 20 years of prison transformed himself into a passionate advocate for justice, a highly intelligent man and a skilled organizer. During his recent hearing before the Michigan Board of parole, over two hundred people testified — many attesting to his ability to serve as a community asset and to the man that he has become in prison. Others, by contrast, argued that he should remain in prison. Somewhere between these two perspectives, we have lost the idea of justice.
Editorial
OUR OPINION: Prosecutors ought not have sole authority to try juveniles as adults
Any day now the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether judges can sentence juveniles convicted of serious crimes that don’t result in a death to life without parole. The decision involves two cases in Florida, which incarcerates the most juveniles sentenced to life without parole — 76 out of 109 in the United States.
Joe Sullivan is one of only two men in the United States to receive a life sentence at age 13 after being convicted of brutally beating and raping an elderly woman in Escambia County. Terrance Graham got life without parole for crimes committed when he was 16 and 17 — for armed burglary with assault or battery and attempted armed robbery in Duval County.
Their lawyers argue that life without parole for juveniles who commit nonhomicide crimes is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional.
By James Alan Fox
In debates about punishment, whether focused on the death penalty or adult sentences for juvenile offenders, I often get asked how I’d feel if it were my loved one–my wife or my child–who was murdered. Sometimes the question is posed in a respectfully polite way, as in a comment to my recent posting on juvenile life without parole. Yet occasionally there is a more threatening undertone accompanied by the suggestion that people like me are what’s wrong with the criminal justice system.
I can tell you with complete certainty that my response to such a “God forbid” event would be emotional, irrational, and extreme. My impulse, although a controllable one, would be to want vengeance. However, for the most part, it is not relevant how I would feel and what I would wish for under such a devastating hypothetical.
Isn’t it ironic that those who clamor for stiffer penalties are rarely asked if they would feel any differently were it their child who was accused of murder?
Read more at Boston.com.
By Leticia Miranda
Efrén Paredes Jr. was a 15-year-old honor roll student in rural Michigan when he was convicted of killing an assistant manager at the grocery store where he worked and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Today, he is one of almost 1,775 prisoners who were sentenced as youth and locked up for life without parole, according to a report released by The Sentencing Project, a prison reform research and advocacy organization. A staggering 77 percent of those youth are Black or Latino.
Read more at ColorLines.
There are more than 2,500 people in the United States serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed under the age of eighteen. In the spring of 2010, the United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of imposing such sentences on a subset of these juvenile offenders who were convicted of non-homicide crimes. This constitutional challenge was brought before the court in two cases,
This Issue Brief begins by explaining why the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole is deeply flawed public policy. First, we address the long-recognized principle that youth are different from adults, reinforced in recent years by adolescent development brain science, as well as by examples of youth who were successfully rehabilitated. Second, we critique the frequently argued notion that harsh sentencing is necessary to protect public safety, a premise undermined by both the inconsistent and arbitrary application and by the resulting diversion of taxpayer dollars that could be used to increase public safety through prevention programs. Third, we discuss how the sentencing of youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole undermines America’s moral standing in the world, as the only nation in the world that imposes this irrevocable sentence on people under the age of eighteen.
We conclude the Issue Brief with a suggested alternative to the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole which balances the need to hold youth who commit serious crimes accountable, while still recognizing their inherent capacity for change. We recommend the creation of a system that would allow for meaningful periodic review of sentences given to youth convicted of serious offenses to determine whether they continue to pose a threat to society or may be able to return to our communities as productive citizens. This is a common sense solution to an irrational and grossly misguided policy.
Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (EIN 27-3761788) is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
