34 PRIsMmagazine.org

On June 25, 2012, the united states supreme cour t struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for homicide offend-ers who are under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes. this narrow 5-to-4 decision is a victory for both juvenile lifers

and the advocates who have worked tirelessly for many years on their behalf. in the Miller v. alabama ruling, the majority opinion as stated by Justice elena kagan was that juvenile life-without-parole (JlWoP) convictions violate the eighth amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

approximately 2,600 citizens are currently serving JlWoP sen-tences. More than 2,000 of these were sentenced through the manda-tory sentencing practice that the new ruling has barred; it is these prisoners who now have hope of eventual release.1

civil rights attorney Bryan stevenson represented the defendants in the case. the executive director of the nonprofit law firm equal Justice initiative, stevenson called it “an impor tant win for children... the cour t has recognized that children need additional attention and protection in the criminal justice system…[this] decision requires the lower cour ts to conduct new sentencing hearings where judges will have to consider children’s individual character and life circumstances, including age, as well as the circumstances of the crime.”

But the fight for juvenile justice is far from over. Because resen-tencing must be initiated by the prisoners themselves, the majority of whom lack the funds to hire an attorney, stevenson worries that many will remain in prison. the supreme cour t has stated that prison-ers seeking new hearings have no constitutional right to counsel. and youths will continue to be tried as—and incarcerated with—adults, as this ruling touches exclusively on mandatory life-without-parole sen-tences.

HoW did tHis HaPPen?Many americans are surprised to learn that the us not only incarcer-ates a greater percentage of its citizens than any other country in the world but also has the dubious distinction of being the only nation

that sentences children to life in prison without parole. What is this harsh sentencing based upon?

two key factors have contributed to the large numbers of juve-nile lifers. the first is mandatory transfer laws. transfer laws, which vary by state, determine whether a juvenile will be heard in a juve-nile cour t or prosecuted in an adult criminal cour t. these transfers can occur through judicial waiver (a juvenile cour t judge decides), prosecutorial discretion (the prosecutor decides to directly file in an adult criminal cour t), or legislative statute/statutory exclusion (state law mandates that it is automatically filed in an adult criminal cour t). currently 29 states have automatic statutory transfer laws so that all juveniles charged with felony murder are tried in adult cour t at the very star t, and murder charges apply to both the principal actor in the murder and any accomplices who are a par t of the original felony regardless of their role in the crime.

the second factor is mandatory sentencing laws. When statutes automatically dictate the sentence for a par ticular crime, the hands of judges are tied in terms of determining what may be a more just sentence given par ticular circumstances. anita colon, Pennsylvania co-ordinator for the national campaign for the fair sentencing of youth, illustrates this in the tragic story of her brother, Rober t “saleem” Hol-brook. at the age of 16 Holbrook was given $500 by a drug dealer to serve as the lookout during a drug transaction. the transaction turned out to be a robbery/murder, and Hobrook was eventually charged and convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without the pos-sibility of parole. despite the judge’s expressed acknowledgement that Holbrook was the youngest and least culpable in the crime, Penn-sylvania law mandated that he sentence the boy to life without parole. according to Human Rights Watch, 59 percent of juvenile lifers are first-time offenders, like Holbrook, with no juvenile or adult record.2

like the rest of the us criminal justice system, JlWoP reflects extensive racial and economic disparities. youth of color are more likely than white youth to be transferred into adult cour ts for every type of offense.3 in Pennsylvania, 65 percent of prisoners serving

KiDs shoulDN’t Die iN PrisoNA lo o k at th e r ecent m i ller v. Alabama su pr em e co u rt d ecisi o n—a vi cto ry fo r j uven i le j usti ce advo cates—an d th e lo n g har d road ah ead by kimberlee Johnson

35

JlWoP sentences are african american. White youth in adult cour t are twice as likely as african american youth to have a private lawyer, and youth represented by private attorneys are less likely to be convicted, regardless of race or ethnicity.4

Many politicians have garnered popularity by taking tough-on-crime stances and using phrases like “adult crime, adult time.” chil-dren, however, are unlike adults in one very significant way. according to dr. Ruben Gur, director of the university of Pennsylvania Medical center, “the evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant par ts that govern impulsiv-ity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable…”5

While our laws determine that young people are not mature enough to drive before the age of 16, vote before 18, or use alcohol before 21, trying and sentencing children as adults implies that they are capable of exercising appropriate judgment in the midst of peer pressure, tempting life circumstances, and often difficult home situa-tions. sadly, the recent ruling against mandatory lWoP sentences for juveniles will do nothing to change the broader situation for youths charged with violent crime. all states have laws permitting the trying of children as adults (under various circumstances), and at least 22 states and the district of columbia have no minimum age restriction. trying youth in adult cour t could also subject them to adult sentences and placement in adult prisons.6

While natural consequences and appropriate punitive judgments are needed for children as well as adults, “the juvenile justice system was founded because youth have unique characteristics—requiring special protections and services—that reflect a greater capacity to change than adults.”7 if this is true, rehabilitation/restoration as a productive member of society is not only a wor thy but also a realistic goal for them.

consider Philadelphia native edwin desamour. at the age of 16, desamour was tried and convicted of murder as an adult. spared a life sentence, he was given seven to 20 years, going on to serve eight years in an adult prison and over 11 years on parole. despite his misery while incarcerated, desamour was motivated by the possibility of parole and determined to change his life around and never return. upon his release, and with the help of community suppor t, desamour eventually founded the nonprofit MiMic—Men in Motion in the com-munity. MiMic is a group of men, most of whom are ex-offenders, who offer mentoring and crisis intervention to at-risk youth in order to keep them from entering the juvenile justice system in the first place. like desamour himself, MiMic volunteers model what it takes to be a productive citizen and are living proof that redemption is possible. iMPact and iMPlications of neW RulinGopponents of the abolition of mandatory JlWoP argue that given the heinous and sometimes premeditated murders that are committed,

15-year-old in confinement in san Jose, calif. (Photo by Richard Rodriguez)

36 PRIsMmagazine.org

JlWoP should continue in the united states. it is impor tant to remember that to the same extent that juvenile lifers, family members of these lifers, and fair sentencing advocates feel excited, victorious, and relieved, victims’ families, prosecutors, and victim-advocacy groups feel angry, defeated, and grieved.

these voices must also be heard. Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, presi-dent of the national organization of victims of Juvenile lifers, said, “this ruling invalidating the life sentences of many of our family mem-bers’ murder cases comes against the backdrop of tragedy. While we understand the tragic consequences to the killers, the entire context of this decision is first and foremost the appalling and senseless mur-

ders of our innocent loved ones and the devastation left behind… the deluge of litigation, legislation, and resentencing that has been opened … by the cour t will rip up the legal finality that family members have relied on. We will have to go back to cour t and re-engage with the offenders who ruined our lives.”8

as a result of Miller v. alabama three things will happen. first, states must respond with changes in legislation. second, cour ts must provide new sentencing hearings to all of the affected petitioners. third, the public consciousness and dialogue must grow as it relates to issues of mandatory minimum sentencing, transfers of youth to adult criminal cour ts, and the appropriateness of adult sanctions for

juveniles convicted as adults.

states must en-act laws consistent with the Miller v. ala-bama ruling. all states with mandatory sen-tencing schemes are affected by the cour t’s decision—and the responses have been varied. in the state of Pennsylvania, which has the highest num-ber of juvenile lifers at 480, the chair of the senate judiciary committee, sen. stew-ar t Greenleaf (R-12), held a public hearing on July 12, 2012, to receive testimony re-garding how to imple-ment the supreme

tHe caMPaiGn foR youtH Justice (campaignforyouthJustice.org) is dedicated to ending the practice of try-ing, sentencing, and incarcerating youth in the adult criminal justice system.

tHe coalition foR Juvenile Justice (JuvJustice.org) is a nationwide coalition of state advisory Groups and allies dedicated to preventing children and youth from be-coming involved in the courts and upholding the highest standards of care when youth are charged with wrongdoing and enter the justice system.

tHe eQual Justice initiative (eJi.org) is a nonprofit that provides legal repre-sentation to indigent defendants and prisoners who have been denied fair and just treatment in the legal system, includ-ing juvenile offend-ers. check out their excellent resources on children in adult prison.

Men in Motion in tHe coMMu-nity (MiMicPhilly.org) seeks to build bridges of communi-ty suppor t and social bonds for Phila-delphia’s high-risk youth, young adults, and previously incar-cerated men through mentoring, com-munity engagement, and educational enrichment.

tHe national oRGaniZation of victiMs of Juvenile lifeRs (novJl.org) tells the stories of those victimized by juvenile offenders. take some time to visit their site in order to better understand their side of the issue and to grieve their losses as well.

tHe caMPaiGn foR tHe faiR sentenc-inG of youtH (endJlWoP.org) is a national campaign that has been working to end the practice of sentenc-ing youth to die in prison.

D i g D eeper: O rgan izati o ns

in 2008 a group of five young men were arrested in Miami for armed car-jacking, bur-glary, sexual battery, and assault. among them was then-13-year-old Ronald franklin. the older members of the group pointed a finger at Ronald as the ringleader, although he was the youngest. Ronald is still being held awaiting trial in an 8×10 cell at turner Guilford knight correctional center. (Photo by Richard Ross; juvenile-in-justice.com)

37

cour t’s decision. this is perceived as an immediate act to achieve compliance with the higher cour t’s mandate. sentencing laws related to first- and second-degree homicide convictions are the primary issue. according to lourdes M. Rosado, as-sociate director of the Juvenile law center, sen. Greenleaf is trying to get the relevant legislation passed by the end of 2012, but this process may take longer depending on the state.

lower cour ts must offer the oppor tunity for new sentencing hear-ings to those currently serving man-datory juvenile life-without-parole sentences. at these hearings, miti-gating circumstances and arguments (related to age, family and home en-vironment, relevant circumstances, and the possibility for rehabilitation) can be presented, and judicial discretion may be used in sentencing. according to Rosado, a letter containing the Motion of Post convic-tion Relief form has been sent to all juvenile lifers in Pennsylvania, encouraging them to file a petition within 60 days of the supreme cour t ruling, challenging their life-without-parole sentence. in Phila-delphia alone approximately 250 cases are already before the cour t of common Pleas in order to have sentences revisited. as anita colon indicated in her July 12, 2012, testimony before the senate Judiciary committee in Pa, “the crucial mitigating factors that my brother’s trial judge was prohibited from considering all those years ago must now be taken into consideration.”9

lest anyone think this process will be easy, consider the extreme dissent and disagreement with regard to interpretations of the retro-activity of the cour t’s ruling. chief Justice John Rober ts, in his dis-senting statement, said that it “is a great tragedy when a juvenile commits murder—most of all for the innocent victims. But also for the mur derer, whose life has gone so wrong so early. Perhaps sci-ence and policy suggest society should show greater mercy to young kill ers, giving them a greater chance to reform themselves at the risk that they will kill again… neither the text of the constitution nor our precedent prohibits legislatures from requiring that juvenile murderers be sentenced to life without parole.”10 this statement has formed a basis upon which many district attorneys’ offices are fighting to main-tain (discretionary) life-without-parole sentences for those previously convicted under mandatory sentencing laws (despite the fact that any juvenile sentences lacking the possibility of parole were discouraged by the cour t).

the public consciousness has been raised as a result of the Miller v. alabama supreme cour t ruling. oppor tunities for discourse must continue as issues of human rights and juvenile justice come to the fore in our society. We must contend with the issues of manda-tory minimum sentencing, transfers of youth to adult criminal cour ts, and the appropriateness of adult sanctions for juveniles convicted as adults. People of conscience must take action. How?

) educate yourself about these issues. (see “dig deeper: Books” above.) Become par t of or suppor t the effor ts of an existing orga-nization or movement that is making progress with regard to these issues. (see “dig deeper: organizations” on page 36.)) suppor t the families of victims who died at the hands of juve-niles. suppor t the families of incarcerated youths. ) Host forums at your organization or job to educate others about juvenile justice issues. ) churches and other community organizations, donate the use of your space for community meetings. allow flyers to be posted. disseminate information.) admit your involvement or place in this issue (e.g., victim of violent crime, family member of an incarcerated person, advocate, opponent) and voice your beliefs.) Write a letter (or star t a letter-writing campaign) to your dis-trict attorney, state representatives, and local newspaper editor expressing your opinion about the issue.

(editor’s note: due to space limitations, the endnotes for this ar ticle have been posted at PRisMmagazine.org/endnotes.)

kimberlee Johnson is chair of the urban studies depar tment and direc-tor of the center for urban youth development at eastern university’s Philadelphia campus. she is a member-at-large of the coalition for Juvenile Justice. the author would like to express par ticular thanks to anita colon (Pennsylvania coordinator for the national campaign for the fair sentencing of youth); edwin desamour (founder of MiMic); lourdes Rosado, esq. (associate director of the Juvenile law center); and Jeffrey shook, esq. (associate professor of law and social work at the university of Pittsburgh) for their time and contributions to this ar-ticle. (the editor would like to thank Roger Zeperneck, board member of the Pennsylvania Prison society, for his guidance.)

editoR’s Pick: tRue noteBooks—a WRiteR’s yeaR at Juvenile Hall is Mark salzman’s account of his reluctant first visit to a writing class at l.a.’s central Juvenile Hall, a lockup for violent teenage offenders, many of them charged with murder. What he found so moved and astonished him that he began to teach there regularly. an eye-opening, hear t-softening read.

Boys aMonG Men: tRyinG and sentencinG Juveniles as adults by david l. Myers (Praeger, 2005) explores the evolution of transfer laws, increasingly prevalent in the us,

that send youth to adult prisons rather than juvenile detention facilities.

last cHance in teXas: tHe RedeMPtion of cRiMinal youtH by John Hubner (Random House, 2008) looks at a facility in texas that runs the most aggressive–and one of the most successful–treatment programs for violent young offenders in america.

D i g D eeper: b o o ks