-
1The Sentencing Project 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036 sentencingproject.org
SentencingProject
the
Policy Brief: Juvenile life Without Parole
Juvenile life Without Parole:an overvieW
Today, more than 2,500 individuals are serving a life sentence
without possibility of parole for crimes committed as children.
Juveniles serving life without parole (JLWOP) are unique to the
United States; no other country currently imposes the sentence on
people under 18 years old.
This policy choice is not shared among all states. Twelve states
and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without the
possibility of parole for juveniles; in a handful of other states,
no one is serving the sentence (see Figure 1). Following the 2012
U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama (132 S. Ct. 2455
(2012)), states and the federal government are required to consider
the unique circumstances of each juvenile defendant in determining
his or her sentence; mandatory life sentences without the
possibility of parole for juveniles are unconstitutional.
Two-thirds of JLWOP sentences occur in just five states:
Pennsylvania (472), Michigan (356), Florida (355), California
(293), and Louisiana (228). (Following the passage of Californias
SB 9 in 2013, most of this states prisoners are getting new
sentences.) Seventy-three children sentenced to life without parole
were 13 or 14 years old at the time of their offense.1
Recent research on adolescent brain development confirms the
commonsense understanding that children are different from adults
in ways that are critical to identifying age-appropriate criminal
sentences. This understanding Justice Kennedy called it what any
parent knows2 was central to three recent Supreme Court decisions
excluding juveniles from receiving the harshest sentencing
practices.
SuPreme Court rulingSRecent Supreme Court rulings have banned
the use of capital punishment for juveniles and limited life
without parole sentences to homicide offenders and banned
the sentence for those convicted of any other crime. In 2012,
the Court ruled that judges must consider the unique circumstances
of each juvenile offender, banning mandatory sentences of life
without parole for all juveniles.
roPer v. SimmonS, 543 u.S. 551 (2005)The Supreme Court ruled
that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death for crimes committed
when they were less than 18 years old, writing that the death
penalty is a disproportionate punishment for the young; immaturity
diminishes their culpability. The Roper ruling affected 72
juveniles in 12 states.3 Between 1976 and the Roper decision, 22
defendants were executed for crimes committed as juveniles.4
graham v. florida, 560 u.S. 48 (2010)Having banned the use of
the death penalty for juveniles in Roper, the Court left intact the
sentence of life without parole as the harshest sentence available
for crimes committed by people under 18. Most of the 72 individuals
who were on death row prior to the Roper decision had their
sentences converted to life without parole. In Graham v. Florida,
the Court banned the use of life without parole for juveniles not
convicted of homicide. The ruling applied to at least 123 prisoners
77 of whom had been sentenced in Florida.5
Court precedents recognize that crimes that do not result in
death are less deserving of the most serious punishments (Kennedy
v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008)).
-
2The Sentencing Project 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036 sentencingproject.org
SentencingProject
the
Policy Brief: Juvenile life Without Parole
Thus, having defined the maximum punishment for all juvenile
offenders (life without parole), the Court ruled that punishment
must be limited to the most serious crimes (those involving
homicide).
miller v. alabama and JaCkSon v. hobbS, 132 S. Ct. 2455
(2012)Following Ropers exclusion of the death penalty for juveniles
and Grahams limitation on the use of life without parole,
approximately 2,500 offenders were serving sentences of life
without parole for crimes committed as juveniles, all of whom were
convicted of homicide.6
In 2012, deciding Miller and Jackson jointly, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that, for juveniles, mandatory life without parole
sentences violate the Eighth Amendment. Writing for the majority,
Justice Kagan emphasized that
judges must be able to consider the characteristics of juvenile
defendants in order to issue a fair sentence. Adolescence is marked
by transient rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess
consequences, all factors that should mitigate the punishment
received by juvenile defendants. Approximately 2,000 prisoners
serving JLWOP may be affected by this ruling.
retroaCtivity folloWing millerThe Miller ruling affects
mandatory sentencing laws in 29 states and the federal government.
States have been mixed in interpreting the retroactivity of Miller.
Some state Supreme Courts (Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Nebraska, and Texas) have ruled that Miller applies
retroactively while other states (Louisiana, Minnesota and
Pennsylvania) have ruled that Miller is not retroactive. Cases are
still pending in Florida and Washington. State legislative
responses have been mixed
Figure 1: States that have banned or limited the use of juvenile
life without parole sentences
Banned JLWOP
No JLWOP PrisonersSource: Data collected by The Sentencing
Project
-
3The Sentencing Project 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036 sentencingproject.org
SentencingProject
the
Policy Brief: Juvenile life Without Parole
as well, but most states have yet to change their statutes,
leaving the vast majority of Miller-eligible prisoners awaiting
word about their prospects for resentencing.
individualS Serving Juvenile life Without Parole
SentenCeSFifteen states and the District of Columbia do not have
any prisoners serving life without parole, either due to laws
prohibiting the sentence or because there are not any juveniles
serving the sentence at this time. For the remaining 35 states, all
but five incarcerate fewer than 100 prisoners.
Childhood exPerienCeSThe life experiences of the approximately
2,500 people serving juvenile life sentences vary, but they are
often marked by very difficult upbringings with frequent exposure
to violence; they were often victims of abuse themselves. Justice
Kagan, in the Miller ruling, ruled that Alabama and Arkansas erred
because a mandatory sentencing structure does not tak[e] into
account the family and home environment (Miller Slip Op at 15). The
petitioners in the cases, Kuntrell Jackson and Evan Miller, both 14
at the time of their crimes, grew up in highly unstable homes. Evan
Miller was a troubled child; he attempted suicide four times,
starting at age 6 (Miller Slip Op. at 4). Kuntrell Jacksons family
life was immers[ed] in violence: Both his mother and his
grandmother had previously shot other individuals (Miller Slip Op.
at 16). His mother and a brother were sent to prison.7 The
defendant in Graham, Terrance Graham, had parents who were addicted
to crack cocaine (Graham Slip Op. at 1).
In 2012, The Sentencing Project surveyed people sentenced to
life in prison as juveniles and found the defendants in the above
cases were not atypical.8
79% witnessed violence in their homes 32% grew up in public
housing 40% had been enrolled in special education
classes Fewer than half were attending school at the
time of their offense 47% were physically abused
80% of girls reported histories of physical abuse and 77% of
girls reported histories of sexual abuse
raCial diSParitieSRacial disparities plague the imposition of
JLWOP sentences.9 While 23.2% of juvenile arrests for murder
involve an African-American suspected of killing a white person,
42.4% of JLWOP sentences are for an American-American convicted of
this crime. White juvenile offenders with African-American victims
are only about half as likely (3.6%) to receive a JWLOP sentence as
their proportion of arrests for killing an African-American
(6.4%).
CoSt of life SentenCeSAside from important justice
considerations, the financial cost of JLWOP sentences is
significant. A life sentence issued to a juvenile is designed to
last longer than a life sentence issued to an older defendant.
Housing juveniles for a life sentence requires decades of public
expenditures. Conservative estimates of the annual cost of
incarceration per inmate suggest that it is approximately
$31,000.10 Beyond age 55, the annual cost is closer to $65,000,11
mostly due to higher medical costs. Therefore, a lifetime sentence
for a juvenile will cost taxpayers approximately $2 million.
What makeS JuvenileS different?In amici briefs written on behalf
of the young defendants in Roper, Graham, and Miller, organizations
representing health professionals, such as the American Academy of
Child Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychological
Association, explained current research on immature brains.
In Miller, Justice Kagan noted that adolescence is marked by
immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and
consequences, all factors that limit an adolescents ability to make
sound judgments. Justice Kagan cited Graham and J. D. B. v. North
Carolina (546 U.S. ___ (2011)) in noting that juvenile defendants
are at a substantial disadvantage in criminal proceedings; they are
less likely than adults to be able to assist in their own defenses
(working constructively with counsel) and
-
4SentencingProject
the
Policy Brief: Juvenile life Without Parole
1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th FloorWashington, D.C. 20036Tel:
202.628.0871Fax: 202.628.1091sentencingproject.org
This briefing paper was written by Joshua Rovner, State Advocacy
Associate.
The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective U.S.
criminal justice system by promoting reforms in sentencing policy,
addressing unjust racial disparities and practices, and advocating
for alternatives to incarceration.
1 Equal Justice Initiative (2007). Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing
13- and 14-Year Olds to Die in Prison.
http://www.eji.org/files/20071017cruelandunusual.pdf
2 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)3 Death Penalty
Information Center. U. S. Supreme Court: Roper v. Simmons, No.
03-633. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/u-s-
supreme-court-roper-v-simmons-no-03-633 4 Death Penalty
Information Center. Facts About the Death Penalty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf 5 Graham
(slip op. at 2).6 That count likely underestimates the true scope
of the population of juvenile prisoners who will serve the rest of
their lives in
prisons. Under these definitions, juveniles sentenced to virtual
life sentences (such as a 99-year prison term) are not defined as
JLWOP inmates even though they are guaranteed to die in prison
barring a commutation or other change in their sentence.
7 Denniston, L. (2012). Argument Preview: Youthful crimes, life
sentences.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/argument-preview-youthful-crimes-life-sentences/
8 Nellis, A. (2012). The lives of juvenile lifers: Findings from
a national survey. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project.9
Ibid.10 Henrichson, C. and Delaney, R. Vera Institute of Justice
(2012). The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs
Taxpayers.
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Price_of_Prisons_updated_version_072512.pdf
11 National Institute of Corrections (2004). Corrections health
care: Addressing the needs of elderly, chronically ill, and
terminally ill
inmates. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.12
Op. cit. 813 American Law Institute (2010). Model penal code:
Sentencing: Council draft No. 3. Philadelphia, American Law
Institute.
they are likely to respond poorly to interrogation. Even before
Roper, states routinely recognized differences between juveniles
and adults in other contexts. Almost every state prohibits
juveniles from voting, from serving on juries, and from getting
married without parental consent.
The Graham decision emphasized the importance of giving juvenile
offenders a chance to become rehabilitated. These individuals have
a substantial capacity for rehabilitation. But many states deny
this opportunity: approximately 62% of people sentenced to life
without parole as juveniles do not participate in prison programs
in large part due to state prison policies that prohibit their
participation or limited program availability.12
momentum for reformEliminating juvenile life without parole does
not suggest guaranteed release of these offenders. Rather, it would
provide that an opportunity for review be granted after a
reasonable period of incarceration, one that takes
into consideration the unique circumstances of each defendant.
In many other countries the period before a mandated review is 10
to 15 years.13 If adequate rehabilitation has not occurred during
these years in prison, as decided by experts, the individual should
remain in prison and his/her case should be reviewed again in
another few years. Nor is it appropriate to eliminate life
sentences in name only, replacing them with excessively lengthy
prison terms that can reasonably expected to last for an offenders
entire life.
There is mounting support for this reform in select states.
Motivated by the Miller decision, the state of California (home to
one of the largest populations of JLWOP defendants) now affords
prisoners a meaningful chance at parole after 15-25 years if their
crime occurred when they were a juvenile. Reforms are underway in
other states as well.
The United States is out of step with the rest of the world in
its treatment of juveniles who commit serious crimes. Sentences
that close the door on rehabilitation and second chances are cruel
and misguided.
endnoteS