Should Juvenile Offenders Be Sentenced to Life Without Parole?

The U.S. Supreme Court, now in its 2009-2010 session, will soon determine whether or not sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole is constitutional. The decision will be made in light of the 2005 Roper v. Simmons ruling prohibiting the death penalty for persons committing crimes while under the age of eighteen.

The case before the court, Terrance Graham v. Florida / Joe Sullivan v. Florida, concerns two young men convicted of two unrelated crimes. Joe Sullivan was thirteen when he was convicted of sexual battery in conjunction with the armed robbery of an elderly woman and sentenced to life without parole. It is worth noting that his conviction for the sexual battery is highly questionable. However, Terrance Graham was sixteen when he violated his parole for armed robbery by committing a home-invasion burglary and readily admits to his crimes, including a few more armed robberies for which he was not tried. He was deemed unreformable by the judge, and sentenced to life without parole. What is notable in both cases is that neither one was convicted of murder or felony-murder, though the crimes are considered violent. These two men, now in their thirties, are at the center of the debate over whether juveniles should be sentenced to life without parole for any reason, or for any reason but first degree murder. There are many others like them who were given life sentences for non-homicide related crimes, and even more (a quarter of the 2700 given LWOP sentences as juveniles) for felony murder.

Many victims' rights advocates and tough-on-crime conservatives argue that the states should not be prohibited from sentencing juveniles to life without parole. Charles Stimson and Andrew Grossman of the Heritage Foundation argue that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole is "reasonable, constitutional, and (appropriately) rare" (iv). They say that the practice is "for certain types of juvenile offenders, an effective, appropriate, and lawful punishment" because young people who commit adult crimes should be treated like adults (1). Like many who argue for the continuation of juvenile life without parole, they only mention the most violent of juvenile offenders, the ones who have committed first or second degree murder, and ignore that one quarter of juveniles serving life without parole sentences were convicted of felony-murder (being present during the commission of a homicide, without actually committing the murder). By focusing only on the most serious offenders, who would almost certainly be denied parole even if given the possibility for review, they detract from the more serious issue of protecting the juvenile offenders who are being denied the right to the possibility of a future and the right to a more reasonable and just sentence.

Some who argue for the continuation of juvenile life without parole sentencing also do so in the name of victims' rights. The National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, in an amicus briefpertaining to the Graham and Sullivan cases, says that the possibility of repealing juvenile LWOP sentences "threatens victims with the real possibility they will have to endure trying the case over and over in parole hearings for the rest of their lives" and that "to now subject victims to regular parole hearings with their offenders would be unjust and unfairly burdensome" (20).

Advocates of juvenile justice and human rights groups have long opposed juvenile life without parole sentencing in part because they see children and adolescents as human beings who, despite their criminal behavior and sometimes violent actions, are still capable of rehabilitation and have the potential to become productive members of society.

The practice of sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole should be ended because it does not recognize the fundamental differences between children and adults in terms of personal development and the ability to recognize and fully understand the consequences of their actions. These differences are recognized by Justice Anthony Kennedy who, in his delivery of the Court's opinion in Roper v Simmons, says that "juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure" and "juveniles have less control, or less experience with control, over their own environment" and as such "have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment" (15-16).

Juveniles, though the courts may sentence them as such, are not adults. As noted by David DeBruin, the attorney for a group of former juvenile offenders, including Republican Senator Alan Simpson, in an amicus brief on behalf of Graham and Sullivan, "It is fundamentally inhumane to give up on a youthful offender" because as the Court recognized in Roper v. Simmons, "children are less susceptible to deterrence, less deserving of retribution, and much more capable of rehabilitation" (3). The American Psychological Association, in an amicus brief in the Graham and Sullivan cases asserts that "because the adolescent self is not yet fully formed, there is no way reliably to conclude that an adolescent's crime is the expression of an entrenched and irredeemably malign character that might justify permanent incarceration" and that there is "no way to distinguish the hypothetical juvenile offender who is a hardened criminal from the offender whose crime is a product of the transient influences of adolescence itself" (33). Thus, the sentencing of juvenile offenders to life without parole leaves no room for the possibility that an offender could be rehabilitated, and operates under the assumption that an offender will never mature past the negative susceptibility of adolescence.

Another reason the life without parole sentences should not be imposed on juvenile offenders is the illegality of the practice on a global scale. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits life without parole sentences for juveniles. Only two countries, the United States and Somalia, have refused to ratify this convention. International law routinely recognizes the differences between children and adults and their subsequent entitlement to protection under the law. However, the United States has steadily increased the length of prison sentences and reduced the age at, and the crimes for which, a juvenile can be tried as an adult. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment should also apply to juvenile LWOP sentencing in terms of the "unusual" because only six states routinely impose life sentences on juveniles involved in non-homicide offenses. Most states do not sentence juveniles to life in prison for any crime but murder, and the United States is the only country that imposes such a sentence at all. The rest of the world has recognized the fundamental differences between children and adults, but the United States continues to punish juveniles as though they were adults, giving them "adult time for adult crime."

Sentencing a juvenile to life in prison is not an exaction of justice; it is a reaction to inflated fears of the child as predator and future career criminal. This fear is demonstrated by the racial disparities in the sentencing of these juvenile offenders. According to Amnesty International, "the estimated rate at which black youth receive life without parole sentences (6.6 per 10,000) is ten times greater than the rate for white youth (0.6 per 10,000)" (2). This racial disparity persists even when all elements of the crime are the same, and is especially true in states like California, where, according to Amnesty International's Human Rights Watch, "African American youth are serving the sentence at a rate that is 18.3 times higher than the rate for white youth" (18). Arguing for the continuation of juvenile life without parole sentencing is just one part of the tough-on-crime mentality shown by some conservatives who want to make their constituents feel safe. By locking up young people, specifically black adolescents, they have eliminated the threat posed by what they see as the inevitable criminals of tomorrow. What has been left out of the equation is the humanity of the offender and his or her potential value to society.

The most crucial reason for opposing juvenile life without parole is the offender's elimination of all hope for the future when that sentence is given, and the denial of a juvenile's potential for rehabilitation. In Roper v. Simmons, the Court ruled that the state could not extinguish the life or the potential for someone to gain "a mature understanding of his own humanity." By sentencing a child to life in prison, all hope for an understanding of himself or herself is extinguished. The offenders are isolated and often denied the educational, vocational, and rehabilitative programs that are given to prisoners who have a chance at parole and re-entry into society.

Author and poet R. Dwayne Betts, in an amicus brief on behalf of Graham and Sullivan, discusses how his possibility of parole gave him hope for the future. He says "if I had gotten life without parole, I would never have written those poems and essays" and that there is an "absolute loss of hope" and "no push to do anything at all" for juveniles serving life sentences (17). Lara Bazelon, in an article in the National Law Journal, states that "by disallowing the great probability that young offenders will grow and change profoundly and for the better, life-without-parole sentences are not only pitiless, but are excessive in a way that the Eighth Amendment forbids" (2). When juvenile offenders are given no possibility of review for parole, and no future outside the prison walls, they have no hope. They are effectively told that they are worthless before they have even had a real chance to prove themselves. Juveniles who are sentenced to life without parole are being judged based on a few moments over their life--a few moments in which they may have exercised poor judgment by participating, even passively, in the commission of a felony.

Sentencing children to life without the possibility of parole is unjust, illegal, and immoral, with the possible exception of those convicted of first degree murder. It is unjust because the punishment does not take into account the differences between children and adults. It is illegal because it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and it is immoral because it denies the the offender the right of hope for the future and labels him or her as worthless before he or she has even entered adulthood.

Human rights groups and advocates for juvenile justice have long recognized the inappropriateness of sentencing juveniles to life without parole. When the Supreme Court issues its ruling in Terrance Graham v. Florida / Joe Sullivan v. Florida, we can hope that they will reaffirm the decision made in Roper v. Simmons, find juvenile life without parole inconsistent with the values of American justice, and give some of the 2700 prisoners sentenced as juveniles to life without parole a reason to live.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. amicus brief in Graham v. Florida / Sullivan v. Florida, United States Supreme Court, Nos. 08-7412 and 08-7621 (2009). Web. 10 Nov. 2009.

Amnesty International. "The Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States." AmnestyUSA.org. 12 October 2005. Web. 4 Nov. 2009.

Bazelon, Lara. "The Juvenile Damned." Law.com. The National Law Journal. 12 Oct. 2009. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.

DeBruin, David W. and R. Dwayne Betts, et al. amicus brief in Graham v. Florida / Sullivan v. Florida, United States Supreme Court, Nos. 08-7412 and 08-7621 (2009). Web. 4 Nov. 2009.

Human Rights Watch. "When I Die, They'll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life Without Parole in California." HRW.org. 17 October 2008. Web. 4 Nov. 2009.

National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers. amicus brief in Graham v. Florida / Sullivan v. Florida, United States Supreme Court, Nos. 08-7412 and 08-7621 (2009). Web. 10 Nov. 2009.

Roper v. Simmons. 543 U.S. 551. U.S. Supreme Court 2005. Law.Cornell.edu. Cornell University's Legal Information Institute. Web. 4 November 2009.

Stimson, Charles D. and Andrew Grossman. "Adult Time for Adult Crimes: Life Without Parole for Juvenile Killers and Violent Teens." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation. 17 Aug. 2009. Web. 4 Nov. 2009.