- Access to Justice
- ACS Book Talk
- ACS Publications
- Constitutional Interpretation and Change
- Criminal Justice
- Democracy and Voting
- Economic, Workplace, and Environmental Regulation
- Equality and Liberty
- First Amendment
- Guest Bloggers
- Immigration
- International Law and the Constitution
- News and Announcements
- Practical Advice
- Separation of Powers and Federalism
- Technology and I.P.
- The Courts
The American Constitution Society takes no position on particular legal or policy initiatives. All expressions of opinion are those of the guest bloggers. ACS encourages its members to express their views and make their voices heard in order to further a rigorous discussion of important issues.
Supreme Court Should Apply Roper Reasoning to Upcoming Juvenile Life-Without-Parole Cases
-
By Charles Ogletree, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law & Director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at is Harvard Law School. Ogletree submitted an Amicus brief in support of Petitioners with the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
The United States Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on November 9 in two cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, which will determine whether it is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to sentence an adolescent who committed a non-homicide offense to life in prison with no opportunity for release.
Petitioners Joe Sullivan and Terrance Graham were both sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for offenses that did not involve homicide in Florida. Sullivan was 13 years old when he was sentenced to spend the remainder of his natural life in prison. Graham received life without parole for a parole violation at 17 years old. He was sentenced without a trial.
Sullivan and Graham present an opportunity for the Court to affirm the reasoning put forth in Roper v. Simmons, which struck down capital punishment for juveniles. Roper established what every parent knows and what science confirms: adolescents are fundamentally different from adults in maturity and judgment.
The extensive body of research on adolescent development proves that adolescents have not reached the level of mental or emotional development that allows adults to make mature decisions, think through consequences, and control their impulses. This same developmental immaturity also makes adolescents the strongest candidates for rehabilitation as they grow older.
In Roper, the Court asserted that these significant developmental differences have direct bearing on the culpability of adolescents. The Court ruled that their immature judgment, impulsive decision-making, vulnerability to peer pressure, and inherent potential for rehabilitation reduce culpability such that sentencing them to death violates the Eighth Amendment.
These principles should be applied to the constitutionality of juvenile life-without-parole sentencing. The same transient qualities of adolescence that the Court relied upon in Roper make it similarly inappropriate to subject a teenager to a permanent punishment of life in prison without parole. It is cruel and inaccurate, as the Court has recognized, to pass a final and irreversible judgment on a person whose character is still forming and undergoing significant changes.
Every state acknowledges this relative immaturity of adolescents through civil laws mandating their differential treatment. States restrict adolescents from a wide range of activities that require more mature judgment, such as voting, driving, and consenting to sexual activity. In Florida, the State even restricts the age at which adolescents are allowed to get tattoos, operate golf carts, or attend professional boxing matches. Yet when it comes to criminal sanctions - such as those imposed on Sullivan and Graham - the State disregards this reasoning that young people are indeed categorically different.
The extreme rarity of the punishment shows that it is widely rejected by American society. Only six states are known to imprison juveniles for life without parole in non-homicide offenses. It has been eighteen years since any state sentenced a 13 year old to life without parole for a non-homicide offense. Sullivan is one of only two people in the entire country serving such a sentence. The total number of 13 and 14 year olds sentenced to life without parole for any offense over the last thirty years is 73. Florida is the only state nationwide with a first-time juvenile offender serving life without parole for armed burglary (Graham's offense). This kind of national repudiation has been recognized by the Court as a characteristic of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. It should similarly be applied here.
Although not at issue before the Court, there is an appallingly disturbing component to these juvenile life-without-parole cases. Adolescents subjected to this punishment are disproportionately children of color. In fact, every single young person sentenced to life without parole for a non-homicide offense is a racial minority.
It is my hope that the Court follows its logic in Roper and acknowledges that these punishments must be tempered by an understanding that young people are categorically different in maturity and culpability.
Life-without-parole sentences were designed to deal with the most dangerous offenders who are beyond the pale of rehabilitation. Science, the Court's own precedents, and common sense all teach us that adolescents cannot reliably be categorized among the worst adult offenders. The Court ought to do away with this cruel and inappropriate sentence.
- Charles Ogletree
- Criminal Justice
- Death penalty
- Graham v. Florida
- Guest Bloggers
- Juvenile justice
- Roper v. Simmons
- Sullivan v. Florida
- Supreme Court
- The Courts
Kennedy said it well, if we extend this logic to underage felons what's to prevent the same argument from being used by overage felons?
A lot of domestic relations cases (divorce, child custody) are very stressing upon the parties involved. Are we going to have murders arising from those cases be classified as "impermissible to impose LWOP" too? A lot of adults act childish as well, I suppose if the court rules for the petitioner there's nothing to stop them from eliminating LWOP for people feigning mental illness or stress or eating too many twinkies. Heck, lots of murderers had a poor education or dropped out of school, wonder if this will be the next case on the "Atkins' train". Somewhere the line has to be drawn, folks. The concept that "Death is different" is a norm that has been followed for decades.
Also, I take issue in referring to these criminals as "children", as "children" implies a sense of innocence that I find difficult to project on someone who rapes elderly women or who commits a string of armed robberies, irrespective of whether or not they could legally own a firearm or drive a car at the time, and so forth.
Life with out parole for juvenile offenders, particularly those who are between 11 and 15, is utterly counterproductive. It effectively says that a human being should die in prison for an act or acts committed as a mere child. It is a terrible burden on taxpayers, has absolutely no deterant affect and gives the child offender no reason to work towards rehabilitation. The only things it will provide is jollies for those overzeaolous and vengeful prosecutors who send children away until they fill a coffin, an excuse for lazy legislators who are to "busy" to reform juvenile justice laws to account for the difference between a 17 year old gang banger with a mile long violent record and an 11 or 12 year old middle school kid with no record at all, and the need of some elements of our society to exact cruelty and torture on already damaged children.
A "living death sentence" for a child is morally wrong. Proponents of such cruelty are either ignorant of the incredible damage to the child and cost to society, or enjoy watching children suffer . . which begs the question, are they simply stupid, or are they closet sadists.
One would think more parents/guardians of "children" would be involved/participate in these critical issues. Get educated, and teach their children at least the "Miranda Rights", along with the dangers facing them as "children", in today's society. The case issues pending before the U. S. Supreme court on Nov. 9th, is very imperative/crucial for all of our nation's youth, NOW, and for all of our nation's youth in the future.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!
I agree with Knightgail and believe that is beyond any logical reasoning that we as Americans can sit back and allow these things to take place to our children. There are people out in society committing heinous crimes, molestation, repeated rape charges and many more, that are slapped on the wrist and set free or given "light" sentences that have the majority of the majority of them back in society. Meanwhile, these kids are still sitting in their hell with charges that don’t even compare. Yet they will give a CHILD life in prison! Makes me sick! Something has to change!
This debate has gone on long enough. I know adults who have committed hainous crimes are often offered parole, many times and yet our children are left to rot in prison more often than not for many reasons. Some are because of Adult mind altering drugs these children are given to conform them (ie; prozak) or a child who had been mentally/physically/sexually abused by an adult and just couldn't take it anymore because NO ONE would do anything about it or the child who was accused of committing a crime when in reality an adult did it but didn't think the child would be punished as severely so they blamed the child or how about the adult boyfriend who pointed the finger at his under aged girlfriend and said she did it because he couldn't accept responsibilty for his actions. It's time to look at these children we are throwing away and help them. Look at them on a case by case basis and really see if they belong behind bars the rest of their lives.
Knightgale with what u said below i could of said it any better!!
Society is too quick to "judge", facts not even in evidence yet, apathy and vengenance blinds society to the "real" "facts" of these cases. It is only human nature to become angered at crimes being committed, but seems vengenance takes over the minds of the general public, and forgets that everyone is "innocent" until proven guilty, in a court of law. Juvenile "law reform" is imperative/critical to our nation's youth
Society is too quick to "judge", facts not even in evidence yet, apathy and vengenance blinds society to the "real" "facts" of these cases. It is only human nature to become angered at crimes being committed, but seems vengenance takes over the minds of the general public, and forgets that everyone is "innocent" until proven guilty, in a court of law. Juvenile "law reform" is imperative/critical to our nation's youth. In consideration and passage of Roper vs Simmons, it is crucial to be considered in this upcoming issue before the U. S. Supreme Court, for ALL "children" under the age of "18", dictated/written in the state law statures,as the definition of a "child"/"juvenile",who are barred from the amentities of an "adult", because they are NOT adults!!! "Justice" is long overdue for our nation's "children".
I find it most appauling the courts allow CHARLES MANSON parole hearings over and over, over the years, YET juveniles are sent to life in prison, with NO chance of parole, this practice of "so called" law, is evil, inhumane and barbaric. IT is long overdue to abolish life with NO chance of parole for "children".
Post new comment