Blog: Supreme Court

The Illinois Supreme Court issued a strongly worded endorsement this week for zealous lawyering for kids—the same kind of zealous lawyering that adults routinely expect for themselves. In In re Austin M., Austin M. successfully appealed his delinquency adjudication, convincing a majority of the Illinois Supreme Court that a lawyer cannot simultaneously assert and defend his juvenile client's innocence and also claim to be seeking the truth "the same as the court and the same as the prosecutor." Characterizing this dual mission as "hybrid representation," the Court held that a lawyer cannot serve as both defense counsel and a guardian ad litem on behalf of a child charged with delinquency.
Since the time that Juvenile Law Center opened its doors, we have worked to prevent lawyers from betraying their young clients. While this is important for all defendants, it is particularly so for youth in whom we want to instill a belief in fairness and the rule of law. These kids must also know that they have an advocate that they can confide in—and that the lawyer won't breach confidentiality in the lawyer-client relationship. They must have a lawyer they can return to when they have complaints about the system—this won't happen if they perceive the lawyer as just another arm of the system. A society that has granted children constitutional rights should be concerned when lawyers themselves undermine those rights.

Juvenile Justice Reform

• High court ruling on juvenile life sentences means a chance at freedom (Orlando Sentenial)
  In more than two-dozen states, lawyers can now ask for new sentences. And judges will have discretion to look beyond the crime at other factors such as a prisoner's age at the time of the offense, the person's background and perhaps evidence that an inmate has changed while incarcerated.
• RExO Grants: Reduce Recidivism and Build Lives (Huffington Post)
  This month, the Department of Labor announced grants of nearly $50 million to 25 organizations under two different grant programs that serve juveniles under our Re-Integration of Ex-Offenders initiative.
• Juvenile Justice: A Move Away From Detention For Some (NorthEscambia.com)
  Florida law enforcement and criminal justice officials say the use of civil citations for troubled youth, rather than a lock-up, is slashing costs, and giving kids a better chance of a turn-around, and they want the practice to become more widespread.
• L.A. School Police, District Agree to Rethink Court Citations of Students (Juvenile Justice Information Exchange)
  In the wake of critical news reports, Los Angeles school police and administrators have agreed to rethink enforcement tactics that have led to thousands of court citations yearly for young students in low-income, mostly minority neighborhoods.
• Officials: Mentally ill children who don't get help can end up in criminal justice system (CrownPointCommunity.com)
  To child welfare advocates, the plights of families with mentally ill children demonstrate the state's failure to protect its most vulnerable children. Parents, judges, prosecutors, and other officials in Indiana say there is a multi-agency failure to provide mental health services to the children who need it most.
• Juvenile justice changes cutting costs (Herald Tribune Politics)
  Florida law enforcement and criminal justice officials say the use of civil citations for troubled youth, rather than a lock-up, is slashing costs, and giving kids a better chance of a turn-around, and they want the practice to become more widespread.

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) today ruled that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of murder are unconstitutional. Justice Elena Kegan wrote the majority opinion, which focused on the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Writing at the SCOTUSblog, Tejinder Singh elaborates on the decision:

The Court’s opinion brings together two strands of precedent to hold that a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. The first strand holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits punishments that enact a mismatch between the culpability of a class of offenders and the severity of the penalty. Citing, among cases, Roper and Graham, the Court explains that juveniles have always been regarded as less culpable because the distinctive attributes of youth diminish the penological justifications for imposing the harshest penalties on juvenile offenders, even when they commit severe crimes. The second line of precedent holds that life without parole shares key characteristics with the death penalty, and thus raises similar Eighth Amendment concerns, most notably that defendants are entitled to individualized consideration when facing such a severe sanction.
Weaving these two lines of precedent together, the Court held that mandatory life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment. Such sentencing regimes, the court explained, “preclude a sentence from taking account of an offender’s age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it,” including “immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” as well as the juvenile’s “family and home environment,” and the circumstances of the offense, including “the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him.” By eliding these key factors, mandatory life without parole “poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.”