Juvenile Justice Reform - More on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Prohibiting Life Without Parole for Youth Who Have Not Committed Homicide

[The following is reposted in its entirety from an e-newsletter sent out by the National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN) and is reprinted with permission. -Ed.]
The National Juvenile Justice Network commends the May 17, 2010 holding by the Supreme Court of the United States that it is unconstitutional to sentence youth who did not commit homicide to life without the possibility of parole. Graham v. Florida broadly condemns the sentence of life without parole for youth who have not committed homicide, finding the punishment to be cruel and unusual. The opinion draws upon our national evolving standards of decency demonstrated in part by the fact that only 129 non-homicide youth offenders are currently serving life without parole sentences in only 12 states. 

The strongly worded opinion affirms the fact that youth have lessened culpability than adults, and that youth’s developing brains make it impossible to determine if they are beyond rehabilitation. Reiterating many of the findings from Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), regarding youth’s lack of maturity, underdeveloped sense of responsibility and vulnerability to outside, especially peer, pressure, the Court states that youth cannot be “classified among the worst offenders.” Furthermore, “no recent data provide reasons to reconsider” the Court’s observations in Roper, and “developments in psychology and brain science continue to showfundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds.”

In Graham, the Supreme Court reasserts the “rehabilitative ideal” – the underpinning of the juvenile court – finding that life without parole “forswears altogether” this goal. The Court reminds us of juveniles’ “capacity for change and limited moral culpability,” and states that “a life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity.” 

The Court rejects criminal justice-related justifications for life without parole for non-homicide offenses, stating that “none of the goals of penal sanctions that have been recognized as legitimate – retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation – provides an adequate justification” for such a sentence. The Court additionally states that “life without parole is an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile,” noting that a juvenile offender “will on average serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender.”

The opinion acknowledges the importance of and difficulties in assuring effective juvenile defense, and consequently rejects a case-by case approach to sentencing in favor of a wholesale invalidation of life without parole for youth who did not commit murder. The “features that distinguish juveniles from adults also put them at a significant disadvantage in criminal proceedings”; factors such as a youth’s mistrust of adults, difficulty in weighing long term consequences, and impulsiveness “are likely to impair the quality of a juvenile defendant’s representation.” 

The Court once again clarifies the natural dividing age between youth and adulthood as the age of 18. In its categorical exclusion of youth under 18 from the sentence of life without parole for a non-homicide offense, the Court stated that “the age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood.” 

Lastly, the Supreme Court holds our sentencing practices to the light of international norms, which decry the use of life without parole as a sentence for youth; the United States “is the only Nation that imposes life without parole sentences on juvenile nonhomicide offenders.” The Court finds a “global consensus” against the sentence in world practice as well as in the text of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by every nation except the United States and Somalia. 

Graham v. Florida starkly states that the “Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” States must provide youth with a “realistic opportunity” to turn their lives around and obtain release. The decision’s acknowledgment of the unique potential of youth takes us one important step closer to, and provides much of the reasoning for, the establishment of a humane and just system that holds young people accountable, protects public safety, and gives every youth the opportunity to become a law-abiding, productive citizen.

Press coverage of the decision:

“Justices Limit Life Sentences for Juveniles,” The New York Times, Adam Liptak, May 17, 2010.

“Court Rules Out Some Life Sentences for Juveniles,” The Washington Post, Mark Sherman, May 17, 2010.

“Life ‘Cruel and Unusual’ Punishment for Teens, Court Rules,” CNN, Bill Mears, May 17, 2010.

“Court Limits Harsh Terms for Youths,” USA Today, Joan Biskupic and Martha T. Moore, May 17, 2010.

“Supreme Court Restricts Life Without Parole for Juveniles,” The Washington Post, Robert Barnes, May 18, 2010.

“Supreme Court Rejects Some Life Terms for Juveniles,” National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg and Lynn Neary, May 18, 2010.
 

Sarah Bryer directs the National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN). She has been working in the criminal justice field for more than twenty years. Prior to joining NJJN, she lived in New York City where she was the Director of Policy and Planning at the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), an alternative-to-incarceration program serving more than 10,000 misdemeanor and felony-level, court-involved, youth and adults per year. Also in New York, Ms. Bryer worked at the Center for Court Innovation where she started the Bronx and Queens drug courts, and subsequently was the Manager of Youth Programs, where she initiated one of New York City’s first Youth Courts in Red Hook, Brooklyn. She has been a victim-offender mediator for court-involved youth in California and was an appellate investigator for adults on death row.
Photo: Benjamin Chambers