Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing

The United States stands alone as the only nation that sentences people to life without parole for crimes committed before turning 18. 

 

Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview

Juvenile life without parole refers to a legal sentence where individuals under the age of 18 are imprisoned for life without the possibility of release. This sentencing has been a subject of significant debate globally, particularly concerning its ethical implications and effectiveness. Critics argue that juveniles lack the maturity and understanding of the consequences of their actions and, therefore, should be given the opportunity for rehabilitation rather than facing irreversible punishment. Conversely, proponents believe that in cases of particularly heinous crimes, such sentences may be justified to ensure justice and public safety. In recent years, many countries and jurisdictions have re-evaluated or abolished this practice, recognising the potential for young offenders to reform and reintegrate into society. The discussion around juvenile life without parole highlights broader issues of justice, human rights, and the capacity for personal growth and change, especially among young individuals.

 

Understanding Juvenile Life Without Parole: Supreme Court Decisions

The issue of sentencing juveniles to life without parole has been a significant topic of debate in the legal system, particularly in the United States. The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping how such sentences are applied. In landmark cases such as Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole for non-homicide offences or as a mandatory punishment violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. These decisions highlight the Court's recognition of the developmental differences between juveniles and adults, emphasising that children are more capable of change and rehabilitation. Consequently, these rulings have led to increased scrutiny of life sentences for juveniles, urging courts to consider each individual case carefully and allow for the possibility of parole where justified.

 

Juvenile Life Without Parole in the United States

Sentencing juveniles to life without parole (JLWOP) has been a contentious and evolving topic.

Currently, several states prohibit JLWOP outright, while others only permit it in extreme circumstances. However, the laws and regulations vary significantly across the country, reflecting ongoing debates about justice, rehabilitation, and the treatment of young offenders.

Currently in the United States, 28 states and the District of Columbia have banned juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences for all offenses.

Additionally, five states have no individuals currently serving JLWOP sentences. These states include those that have banned the sentence outright and those where no one is currently serving it for offenses committed before age 18.

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are among the states that have the most people serving JLWOP sentences, particularly for offenses committed before the age of 18. 

Michigan has the largest population serving JLWOP in the world, despite the fact that many JLWOP sentences have been reviewed and overturned.

There are currently fewer than 600 people serving juvenile life without parole (JLWOP).  This number has significantly decreased due to Supreme Court decisions and state-level actions banning the sentence for juveniles. In the past, JLWOP sentences were more common, with an estimated 1,465 people serving them at the start of 2020. 

Judges must now consider factors related to the juvenile's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation before imposing a discretionary JLWOP sentence. 

 

 

📢Call to Action📢

 Demand Congress pass into Law:

“The Juvenile Justice and Rehabilitation Act.” 

1. Ban life without parole for anyone under 18 at the time of the offence.

2. Make it retroactive, so those already serving juvenile LWOP get a fair resentencing hearing.

3. Guarantee parole eligibility after no more than 20 years, with regular reviews.

4. Create national sentencing standards so a child’s future isn’t decided by their zip code.

Protect children from sentences that deny all hope.

Bring U.S. law in line with science, human rights, and basic fairness.

Give kids the chance to grow, change, and earn redemption.

No child should be told they are worth nothing more than a prison cell for life.

Why Now?

Over half of U.S. states have already banned or limited juvenile LWOP.

Supreme Court rulings (Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana) recognise that kids are different -But the Court has not yet banned juvenile LWOP entirely.

Public opinion is shifting: Americans agree children deserve a chance at rehabilitation.

JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN MISSISSIPPI 

The 68 people in Mississippi who were arrested as juveniles and have

served at least 20 years in prison cost the state over $1.2 million every year

they are incarcerated. Expanding parole eligibility for this small portion of

the prison population is potentially a low-risk opportunity to create a sig-

nificant cost savings for Mississippi.

These savings could be reinvested into other anti-recidivism efforts — such

as job training, educational courses and support counseling — that could

yield more successful reentries into communities, and extend the financial

and societal benefit to Mississippi. Outside of the financial benefit, the state

must also consider the most humane options for maintaining accountabili-

ty for some of their more vulnerable, yet valuable citizens. A prison system

proven to be dangerous and counterproductive for adults is certainly not

appropriate for children.

Eventually, people who enter prison as children will leave prison as adults

expected to responsibly navigate a society that may have greatly changed

during their incarceration. Mississippi has an opportunity to invest in a sys-

tem better suited to equip returning citizens for this challenge — starting by

not incarcerating people longer than what is reasonably necessary. While

the number of people affected by such a policy change would be small, the

potential benefit to Mississippi could be substantial.

Disposable Children Pdf
245 downloads

Reading Material

 

In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has significantly limited the extent to which children can be subject to life without parole (LWOP) sentences. In Graham v. Florida (2010), the Court relied upon the scientifically demonstrated difference between adult and adolescent brains and held that juveniles who commit non-homicide crimes can never be sentenced to LWOP.

Only two years later, in Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Court held that youth can never receive LWOP sentences on a mandatory basis; the Miller decision required states to engage in a searching analysis of the juvenile’s social and developmental context before deciding whether to impose LWOP. At the same time, the Miller Court signaled that LWOP should be reserved for those “uncommon” cases where the juvenile’s act of homicide reflects truly “irreparable corruption.” In the wake of the Miller decision, approximately 2500 individuals across the country who had been sentenced to die in prison as children became eligible for a resentencing hearing.

Legal academics and practitioners have written extensively on the implications of Miller, but James Garbarino’s new book, Miller’s Children: Why Giving Teenage Killers a Second Chance Matters for All of Us, brings a new perspective to this discussion, that of a humanistic psychologist. Garbarino has written previously on adolescent violence, and in recent years he has served as a psychological expert witness in post-Miller resentencing hearings. Miller’s Children reflects the depth of his expertise and the hope he has come to have in the power of human transformation.

Garbarino begins by explaining the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in the juvenile sentencing arena. He breaks down the Court’s decisions in a reader-friendly way, while also explaining that most teenagers who commit homicide have a shared background of significant psychological trauma and damage.

Chapter Two introduces the reader to five of “Miller’s Children” – adolescents who committed homicide and whom Garbarino came to know during the resentencing process. He refers to them as “five good men” (p. 31) and tells their stories with fairness and compassion. Having put a human face on the issue of juvenile homicide, Garbarino wrestles in Chapter Three with the moral issues implicated in sentencing – and now resentencing – youth who kill.

He leaves no stone unturned and explores everything from international sentencing norms to the psychological benefits of forgiveness and the definition of evil. Chapters Four and Five delve into the mechanics of how youth rehabilitate themselves, through natural maturation, therapy, social support and spirituality. 

Millers Children concludes with several specific calls for reform: developmentally appropriate sentencing decisions; a willingness for prosecutors and judges to re-examine prior decisions with humility; recognition that brain maturity extends past 18; and the need for treatment and therapy as part of confinement.

Miller’s Children offers readers a rich understanding of the psychology behind adolescent homicide, while also giving us reason to believe in the possibility of transformation and redemption for all youth.