(MintPress) – When the Supreme Court ruled June 25 that juveniles could not be issued automatic life sentences without the chance for parole, thousands of inmates were given hope that crimes committed as children would not keep them behind bars through their elderly years.
The 5-4 High Court ruling was based on the argument that a life sentence without the hope for parole given to a juvenile was unconstitutional, as it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
“The eighth amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions,” the High Court wrote in its opinion. “That right, we have explained, ‘flows from the basic precept of justice that punishment for a crime should be graduated and proportioned’ to both the offender and the offense.’”
The ruling handed down directly impacts the lives of more than 2,500 prisoners in 29 states, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). While not all prisoners will be automatically granted parole, they will now be given the option to apply, with decisions based on the duration that has passed since their crimes and any evidence of change in behavior while in prison, among other factors.
Advocates for victims families did not, however, share a sense of victory in the ruling, claiming they will now be subject to revisitation of the crimes with offenders potentially up for parole.
The cases that led to change
The High Court’s ruling stems from two individual cases in which 14-year-olds convicted of murder were automatically issued sentences for life in prison without parole.
In the case of Jackson v. Hobbs, 14-year-old Kuntrell Jackson was convicted of capital felony murder and aggravated robbery as a co-conspirator in the murder of a store clerk. Jackson, who had accompanied a friend to the store, claimed he learned a friend had a gun while they were on their way to the store, according to court documents. While he remained outside the store for the duration of the robbery, he entered while the shooting was taking place.
Evan Miller, also 14-years-old at the time of his crime, was convicted on a charge for murder in the course of arson after he and a friend lit a trailer on fire, following a night of drinking. Prior to the fire, Miller reportedly beat the resident of the trailer. That resident later died, officially as a result of fire inhalation and injuries from the beating. As a result, the jury imposed the mandatory punishment of life without parole.
After the guilty verdict was handed down in the Jackson case, his defense filed a petition claiming the sentence, mandatory life without parole for a juvenile, was considered cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore a violation of the eighth amendment. The court dismissed the petition — a decision backed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. In Miller’s case, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the sentence.
Moving toward justice
It’s a ruling that also has legal activist groups, including the ACLU pleased, as they’ve argued for years on the side of the recent Supreme Court ruling claiming automatically handing a juvenile a life without parole sentence in murder cases overlooks any opportunity for such criminals to change.
“Today’s decision helps to restore some rationality to the treatment of juveniles in our criminal justice system,” ACLU National Legal Director Steven Shapiro said in a statement. “Surely, it is not too much to expect that judges will at least consider the fact that a 14-year-old is standing before them when deciding whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, even in murder cases.”
The Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) has also been at the forefront of the fight, claiming that life sentences without parole for juveniles should be subject to the same guidelines as death sentences, which are not permitted for juvenile offenders.
“While the United States Supreme Court recently declared that death by execution is unconstitutional for juveniles, young children continue to be sentenced to die in prison with very little scrutiny and review,” the EJI states on its website.
EJI goes so far as to say that life without parole for juveniles is equivalent to a death sentence in prison, as they had previously not been provided any avenue to make it out alive. Like the cases of Miller and Jackson, the EJI said the mandatory sentences were often handed down to young teens who were in the vicinity of crimes committed, therefore warranting a guilty by cooperation conviction.
The question of whether the teens who committed the crimes were of sound, fully developed minds was an issue for the Supreme Court. In its opinion, the High Court referred to two cases, Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, both of which established “that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing.”
In the case of Roper v. Simmons, it was ruled that children could be held to the death penalty for crimes committed. In Graham v. Florida, life sentences without parole for teens who committed crimes other than homicide were banned.
“Because juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform, we explained, they are less deserving of the most severe punishments,” the opinion states.
The Court went on to state that, based on scientific analysis, children are more vulnerable than adults to be negatively influenced by others and that a juvenile’s character is not as formed as an adult at the time the crimes are committed. Essentially, there’s a greater opportunity for change, as the child has not been given opportunity to develop a solid character trend.
Families of victims show mixed response
Not everyone was pleased with the ruling handed down. The National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers (NOVJL) issued a press release in which the Supreme Court decision is labeled as a tragedy.
“While we understand the tragic consequences to the killers, the entire context of this decision is first and foremost the appalling and senseless murders of our innocent loved ones and the devastation left behind,” NOVJL President Jennifer Bishops-Jenkins said.
Jenkins said the concern should instead be for the victims’ families — not those convicted. Her thoughts are echoed by Jody Robinson, a citizen member of NOVJL in Michigan, who argues that the lack of strong legislation could hamper victims’ families ability to feel a true sense of closure.
Parole will not necessarily be granted to all offenders — cases will be handled by the appropriate governing boards and will include consideration of a number of factors, including current exhibited character. However, victims’ families argue the act of simply staying up-to-date with the offenders’ parole statuses will bring back the pain of the crime.
“The deluge of litigation, legislation and resentencing that has been opened today (June 25) by the Court will rip up the legal finality that family members have relied on,” Jenkins said. “We walked away from these sentences believing that part of our ordeal was over.”