The two cases before the Supreme Court are Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida.
- Summary of Graham- In 2003, 16 year old Terrance Graham was charged with battery and attempted armed robbery when he struck a restaurant owner over the head with a steel bar while attempting to rob him. Graham pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to 12 months in the county jail and 3 years of probation. Six months after his release from the county jail, Graham was arrested for a series of armed home invasion robberies. Judge Lance Day stated to Graham that, "it is apparent to the court that you have decided that this is the way you are going to live your life and that the only thing I can do now is to try to protect the community from your actions." Graham's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to life in prison.
- Summary of Sullivan- In 1989, then 13 year old Joe Sullivan was tried and convicted of beating, raping, and robbing (twice) an elderly woman in her 70's. Earlier in the day while the victim was away, Sullivan broke into her home and stole some items. After she returned home, Sullivan returned to her home, beat, rapped, and robbed her again.
Both Graham and Sullivan appealed their convictions and lost at every level of appeal. Then in 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for juveniles was unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote that, "When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity." Thus, likening life in prison without the possibility of parole to the death penalty, the lawyers for Graham and Sullivan have again appealed.
The arguments:
- Supporters of tough criminal sanctions for juveniles: Juveniles who commit the same heinous crimes as adults should be punished like adults, which can include life without parole. Juvenile offenders should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate and reform their lives for the better. However, if those efforts fail and their offenses become more violent, society is safer if those juveniles are sentenced to long term imprisonment.
- Opponents of tough criminal sanctions for juveniles: Juveniles are developmentally different from adults and their characters are still being formed. It is still possible for juvenile offenders to be rehabilitated and reform their lives before they reach adulthood. Thus, to sentence a juvenile to life without parole is to give up on the juvenile prematurely.
The facts & stats:
- Florida, Louisiana, Iowa, California, Nebraska, and South Carolina have all sentenced juveniles to life in prison for non-homicide crimes.
- It is estimated that 2,500 inmates nationwide are serving life sentences for crimes committed as juveniles; 109 of which are for non-homicide crimes.
So, should juveniles be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide crimes? What about for homicide crimes? I have given you the background, arguments, and stats and now it's your turn to give me your opinion!
I don't think there are an easy answers in this situation. On one hand, I think that juveniles deserve an opportunity to be rehabilitated. On the other hand, at what point are juveniles who commit serious crimes beyond being reformed?
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court has already decided that sentencing someone to the death penalty for a nonhomicide crime is cruel and unusual punishment, and that sentencing a juvenile to the death penalty also violates the 8th amendment. If these attorneys are successful in analogizing life without parole to the death penalty, then I think they would have a good chance of successfully arguing that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole for a nonhomicide crime is unconstitutional. But I am not sure this argument would win given the current make up of the Court.
Obviously, I struggle with this issue and I don't have an answer either way. I am saddened at the thought that a 13 year or a 16 year old spending the rest of his life in prison. But I am also concerned about individuals who commit the most heinous crimes and are beyond the point of rehabilitation.
I agree with Tiffany saying there aren't any easy answers to this question. I feel that life in prison without the chance of parole is a very steep sentence for a juvenile, it's saying there is no hope for the child and instead of trying to help them courts would rather just put them away. I feel that by giving this sentence is saying there life is not worth living and that they are not worth the time to try to be helped.
ReplyDeleteWhy are these juveniles commiting these crimes? What factors come in to play: society, mental illness, peers, economy,etc.? I think that a child can be helped or should at least attempted to be helped. I don't feel that children should just be given up on at such a young age. I am not saying they should not pay for their crimes but to give up the rest of their life is a very harsh sentence.
Juveniles that get extreme sentences but do have a chance for parole, what do you think will happen to them when they are released back into society? I feel that some if not many will come out worse than when they went in. The child finding out who they are in prison will affect them for the rest of their lives. They already know or feel that noone expects anything out of them but to be a criminal.
Wow! Great question. I agree with the above well-thought out comments. It's a tough verdict. It would, of course, be administered depending on the case. I think that if there is any reasonable chance that the child is able to be rehabilitated, then of course he/she should not get the verdict. I guess this is the essential question: Is there a case in which there is no reasonable chance that a child will rehabilitate, given proper treatment. My uneducated guess is yes. But, I would also guess that this is rare. Which means I think that: yes, Juviniles SHOULD be sentenced to life without parole (in extremely rare cases).
ReplyDeleteNo one can ever say definitively whether or not a criminal can be rehabilitated. A 17 year old sentenced to life w/o parole and who dies at 75 will have spent over 77% of his/her life in prison. Contrast that to a 45 year old in the same circumstance and who will have spent only 40% in prison. The 77% seems extreme to me.
ReplyDeleteFrom the perspective of society (or at least from my perspective), the only practical difference between the death penalty and life w/o parole is that the life sentence will indefinitely cost society money to maintain with no chance for a reward (I'm all about lowering taxes). In both cases, the threat is permanently removed from society, notwithstanding a jail break. If we don't allow the death penalty, then we definitely should not allow life w/o parole.
I'm against life w/o parole for juveniles. I think 20 years w/o parole is harsh enough; that's more than double the amount of time they would have had free. If it is deemed that they still cannot be fully trusted, then I would advocate a probational period for as long as necessary. This would give the criminal a 2nd chance at a free life and allow him/her to contribute productivity to society.