My Cart 
Home |
Is Life Without Parole for Juvenile Offenders a Life Without Redemption?
Sara Jacobson, Esq.
Director of Trial Advocacy and Associate Professor
Temple University, Beasley School of Law
Everyone knows that kids are different from adults. They act differently from adults because they think differently. Their bodies are still developing, and so are their minds. This truth was first acknowledged by the Supreme Court in its 2005 decision Roper v. Simmons, which held that sentencing juveniles to death was unconstitutional. Last month, the Supreme Court acknowledged that kids are different again, deciding that it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles who commit crimes other than homicide to life without the possibility of parole.
The Court examined two cases from Florida, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida. Terrance Graham had been sentenced to life in prison for a violation of probation stemming from a burglary he pled guilty to committing at the age of 16. Joe Sullivan was 13 when charged with a sexual assault, which earned him a life sentence as well. Because of Florida’s penal system, neither boy could be paroled. Put another way, barring appeal, both would die in jail. As the judge who sentenced Terrance Graham put it, ‘there is nothing we can do for you.’ Graham v. Florida 2010 WL 1946731, U.S., 2010.
Joe Sullivan found himself barred from relief on procedural grounds, but in Graham the court held that sentencing juveniles charged with offenses other than homicides to life without the possibility of parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Early in the decision, the majority determined that because the sentence is rarely employed in the United States, a national consensus exists against it. It went on to weigh the culpability of the conduct involved and the severity of the crime, noting that juveniles like Graham are twice removed from the most serious offenders, both because of their age and because of the nature of their crimes.
The court next determined that penological justifications are insufficient to justify the practice. It reiterated the extensive brain development research from Roper, saying that juveniles are inherently less culpable because their brains are not fully formed. In evaluating the penological justifications, the court also considered whether rehabilitation was still viable for juveniles. Do we take away any hope for rehabilitation when we tell juveniles that nothing they do from the date of sentence forward matters enough to earn them the possibility of release? The court observed, ‘juvenile offenders… are most in need of and receptive to rehabilitation.’ Id (emphasis added). The majority went on to explain why a categorical approach and a bright line rule were more appropriate than evaluating this as an individual case, as Chief Justice Roberts chose to do in his concurrence. The court also found persuasive the overwhelming consensus in international law against sentencing juveniles to life without parole.
No other country in the world permits this type of sentencing practice for juveniles. The court noted that the only other country in the world to permit sentences of life for juvenile offenders, Israel, does so only for homicide or attempted homicide cases and even then permits defendants the possibility of parole.
It is important to note that the decision did not require that the juveniles be released on parole. It does mandate, though, that juveniles charged with non-homicide offenses must be afforded a meaningful opportunity for parole. Also important is the fact that Graham did not change anything for the men and women of Pennsylvania serving life without parole for offenses committed as juveniles. Although there are 450 people in Pennsylvania serving such sentences, all were charged with some form of homicide.
With 450 people serving juvenile life without parole, Pennsylvania has the dubious distinction of having more people serving such a sentence for juvenile offenses than any other state in the nation, which also means then that Pennsylvania has more people serving life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles than any other place in the world. In 2009 the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections listed its annual cost per inmate as $32,059. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/research ___statistics/10669/budget_documents/567424. The Department of Corrections requested an annual budget of 1,803,355,000 for fiscal 2009-10, up 9.978% from the previous year. Id. As advocates and courts move forward, society will need to consider the cost to all of us for maintaining practices the rest of the world has abandoned.
Courts agree with what we all know, that kids are different from adults. Barring new appeal and new law based on Graham, those 450 men and women serving juvenile life without parole in Pennsylvania will all die in prison. The question for our courts to address and our society to consider, is whether they should.
This feature provides our members with the Philadelphia Bar Association “Upon Further Review”, an email service which links lawyers to legal news and analysis over the previous month.
We hope this feature assists the working attorney with the practice of law. We are grateful to and acknowledge the courtesy extended to the Montgomery Bar Association by the Philadelphia Bar Association.
If you have any feedback concerning this new service, feel free to drop me an email.
