27
Jun
14

resistant

States Cling to Life Sentences for Juvenile Offenders
Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal
June 23, 2014

Less than half of the 28 states affected by a 2012 US Supreme Court decision banning mandatory sentences of life in prison without parole for juvenile murderers have reformed their laws.

And of the 13 states that have made legislative changes in response to Miller v. Alabama only four—Delaware, North Carolina, Washington and Wyoming—allow resentencing for their existing juvenile life-without-parole populations, according to a study by The Sentencing Project in Washington, which does sentencing policy research and reform advocacy.

EVAN MILLER—Sentenced to life without parole for a murder committed when he was 14, his case ended in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down harsh mandatory sentences for juveniles.

EVAN MILLER—Sentenced to life without parole for a murder committed when he was 14, his case ended in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down harsh mandatory sentences for juveniles.

Miller struck down the mandatory federal and state sentences for juveniles who committed homicides before they were 18. The 5-4 court, led by Justice Elena Kagan, held that that the sentence “prevents those meting out punishment from considering a juvenile’s ‘lessened culpability’ and greater ‘capacity for change,’ and runs afoul of our cases’ requirement of individualized sentencing for defendants facing the most serious penalties.”

Kagan wrote that she expected that “appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.” And, she added, “Although we do not foreclose a sentencer’s ability to make that judgment in homicide cases, we require it to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”

The high court in Miller did not say whether its decision was retroactive and whether an estimated 2,100 juveniles already sentenced to life without parole could be resentenced. The justices have declined twice, without comment, in the present term to hear cases raising the retroactivity issue.

“We don’t know a whole lot of what is actually happening with those cases,” said Ashley Nellis, senior research analyst for the project. “They could get either a review of their sentence or they could go before the parole board immediately for review. We don’t know if there is any real consistency across the states.”

However, what those juveniles who were sentenced before Miller should get is “another day in court,” she said. “Obviously, their sentences have been ruled unconstitutional, and the whole thrust of the ruling was that they weren’t given individualized review. To just slap another sentence on them is repeating the same mistake.”

Some state courts have addressed the retroactivity question, according to the study. State supreme courts in Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska and Texas have ruled that Miller applies retroactively, while state high courts in Louisiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania have ruled it does not. Cases on that question are pending in supreme courts in Alabama, Colorado, Florida and North Carolina.

The 13 states that have changed their laws in response to Miller imposed new minimum sentences on juvenile murderers that must be served before parole review. Those sentences range from 25 years in Delaware, North Carolina and Washington to 40 years in Nebraska and Texas.

An extremely long minimum sentence, the study says, could ignore the intent of the Supreme Court decision. “To sentence young people into their elderly years amounts to a determination that some offenders permanently lack the capacity to change, which violates the spirit, if not the letter, of both Supreme Court rulings,” it says.

Nellis said she and her colleagues were “overwhelmingly disappointed” by the pace of change in the states during the past two years. “The ruling was pretty straightforward, in our view, and the states seem to have come up with any number of ways to stall.”

She suggested that the large population of juveniles sentenced to life without parole might be behind the reluctance to act within some states.

At the time of the high court’s Miller ruling, more than 2,500 prisoners were serving life without parole for juvenile-committed homicides, the study reports, and two-thirds of those sentences occurred in just five states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, California and Louisiana.

The 13 states that have made legislative changes since Miller are Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

The 15 states that have not made legislative changes are Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont and Virginia.

Twelve states and the District of Columbia ban life without parole for juvenile murderers. Those states are Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming.

.

Marcia Coyle is the chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, a national weekly newspaper that covers law and litigation. Marcia, a lawyer as well as a journalist, has covered the Supreme Court for 25 years. She is also a regular contributor of Supreme Court analysis to PBS’ The News Hour.

۞

Groove of the Day

Listen to The Zombies performing “Tell Her No”

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “resistant”


  1. 1 Bob H
    June 27, 2014 at 10:15 am

    If the Supreme Court has the role of interpreting the Constitution in response to cases, and they rule that a circumstance is unconstitutional, why has it not always been unconstitutional and hence retroactive?

    I am appalled that some state legislatures or governors find any way they can to circumvent the obvious intent of the Supreme Court.

    Tthe phrase “cruel and unusual” has a logic problem; something may be cruel, but if it is not unusual in the US, then it is not cruel and unusual and hence is legitimate, apparently. Various state laws have created manifest injustice with mandatory waivers of juveniles, mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws, etc. They may have been “popular” when enacted, and difficult now to use up political capital to amend, soften or repeal, but that does not lessen the injustice.

    In a climate where the availability of abortion can be derived from free speech, there must be a way to extrolate that JLWOP is actually a death sentence and hence should be unconstitutional, as an extrapolation fro other Supreme Court rulings. I have some years left in this life, and I hope to see gradual and accelerating change through public opinion effect on legislators and the Supreme Court, or initiatives by the legislators themselves as in some leading states. This will surely seem a strange set of circumstances in twenty years.

  2. 2 matt
    June 27, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    Additional info on Miller v. Alabama and this topic of juvenile LWOP.

    http://jjie.org/miller-v-alabama-one-year-later/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: