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