Supreme Court Weighs Juvenile Life Sentences
Alex Kingsbury

Should juvenile offenders face life behind bars?

Nationwide, there are more than 2,200 juveniles serving sentences of life without parole. That figure includes dozens of children as young as 13 years old. Four years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that executing anyone for a crime committed when he or she was younger than 18 is unconstitutional. On Monday, lawyers arguing on behalf of two Florida prisoners tried to convince the court that the rationale behind the death penalty decision also should extend to life sentences because they are equivalent to executions behind bars.

The court's death penalty ruling was based on two key principles: Minors are not as culpable for their crimes as adults are, and it is possible for youths to reform. The court held that their execution would therefore be "cruel and unusual punishment," which is banned by the Eighth Amendment. The same logic should be applied for Joe Sullivan and, in a separate case, Terrance Graham, lawyers contended.

At the age of 16, Graham and an accomplice robbed a restaurant, a crime for which he served a year behind bars. In 2004, at age 17, he was sentenced to life without parole after he violated the terms of his probation by committing another robbery, this time with a gun.

Joe Sullivan, meanwhile, was convicted of sexual battery against a 72-year-old woman after committing a burglary when he was 13 years old. In the two years before this conviction, Sullivan, who is mentally disabled, had been found guilty of 17 criminal offenses, including several serious felonies. The sexual battery conviction was based on the testimony of two of his older codefendants, who then received lighter sentences. At the trial, which ended with a life sentence, Sullivan was represented by an attorney who has since been suspended from practicing law.

Legal experts say these two examples of life sentences for juveniles are particularly noteworthy. "What separates these cases from cases of life sentences for [other] children is that they received the sentences for crimes short of homicide," says Elizabeth Scott, a professor at Columbia University Law School.

Supporters of such sentences say those who commit crimes should face the full penalty, regardless of their age. "Outside of capital punishment, this court has never exempted a whole class of offenders from a particular category of punishment on the ground that it would be cruel and unusual," the National District Attorneys Association said in an amicus brief.

The arguments also could touch on one of the most politicized aspects of constitutional law--the applicability of foreign precedent. A critical component of the Eighth Amendment relies on the "evolving standards of decency" in a mature society. In the death penalty case, the court used this criterion in part to reverse earlier precedent.

At least 135 countries have expressly rejected life sentences for juveniles, according to Amnesty International. And though 10 foreign nations do allow such sentences in theory, no children are currently serving them. A United Nations treaty that forbids the imprisonment of children without parole has been signed by all countries except the United States and Somalia.

During the confirmation hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, conservative senators pressed particularly hard on the question of whether judges can consider foreign jurisprudence. While foreign law could be used in considering rulings, she said, it could not be used "as a holding or a precedent." Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn disagreed, saying, "I'm not sure I agree with that on certain Eighth Amendment and 14th Amendment cases."

The conservative Heritage Foundation echoes his concerns with regard to these Florida cases the court will consider, contending that the application of "foreign sources of law to determine domestic law, in addition to being legally problematic, too often overlooks the qualitative differences between the United States and other countries."

 

Reader Comments

If the child was not convicted of murder or attempted murder, I see no justification for a life sentence. I think it makes more sense for the child and the American taxpayer to attempt to reform a child and make them a law abiding, productive citizen. It would cost more to keep them in jail for life. If the attempt at reform fails then fine, keep them in jail. But to not even give these kids a chance is just plain stupid. Many kids are victims of circumstance and if given the tools to succeed they would.

Comment by Alice of AR

&nsbp;

The United States is so far behind the enlightened view of the world on so many issues it is disheartening. For juveniles even the thought of 20 years is well beyond their comprehension and might as well be infinity. Those who are seen by appropriate legal and medical personnel not to be a threat to themselves or society should be given incentives such as educational achievement, involvement in music and sports, etc. and allowed to experience the world through careful guidance before and after release. But, to throw away the key is not the answer. As a citizen and retired forensic psychologist, I can think of no reason whatsoever to give life sentences without parole to any juvenile. And, many of the juveniles who commit crimes are neither mature nor have the intellect of education to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Comment by Norman Murphy of CA

&nsbp;

Children do not fully develop mentally until their twenties; therefore they cannot even be considered an adult. Though, those who cannot be reformed and continue to be a social disruption should not have a place in society, that does not mean we should give up on our impressionable youth. I personally believe the government should reinforce youth rehabilitation centers, because crime should be treated as an addiction. Addiction is a formed habit, as is something a child learns when they're young, which in this case is crime.

Comment by Sadi R. Smith of NY

&nsbp;

I am ashamed to be [a citizen of] one of two countries that didn't sign a United Nation treaty to forbid life imprisonment of children without parole. And what are the "qualitative differences between the U.S. and other countries" when it comes to denying children the possibility of rehabilitation? Isn't it criminal and cruel and unusual punishment to lock up children for life (those who didn't take a life)? It's not asking for forgiveness of the crime but for some compassion for lives barely lived.

Comment by Gail Devlin of CA

 

 

Supreme Court Weighs Juvenile Life Sentences | Alex Kingsbury

 

(c) 2009 U.S. News & World Report