Juvenile Justice

Smitty gave me a heads up that The Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in Graham v. Florida (08-7412) and Sullivan v. Florida (08-7621). These cases dealt with the Constitutionality of imposing a life sentence without the possibility of parole on a juvenile. I told Smitty that it was interesting that issue has never come up, but he suggested that those kind of sentences were probably not used on juveniles until relatively recently.

Scotus Blog has an excellent analysis or the arguments and discussions. If you are interested in the briefs and petitions filed up until now, I would suggest checking out scotuswiki. Last, but not least, NPR has a good article on the background of the two petitioners, Terrance Graham and Joe Sullivan.

The NPR article is a good place to start. Not surprising, Florida has 70% of the juvenile offenders locked up for life for crimes other than murder. Graham was convicted of armed robbery and Sullivan for raping an elderly woman. Neither person, in my mind, garners a whole lot of sympathy, but the question then becomes is it reasonable to lock them up and throw away the key?

Scotus Blog details some of the arguments made. For the State of Florida:

The state of Florida’s lawyer, Solicitor General Scott D. Makar from Tallahassee opened his argument by contending that a categorical bar on life-without-parole for minors would run counter to trends in treating juveniles over past couple of decades, frustrating states in their attempts to deal with rising juvenile crime while still remaining sensitive to the needs of youthful offenders.

Interesting, as most studies show that juvenile crime is the lowest it has been in years. Additionally, I don't believe that life sentences are a deterrent to a juvenile that is considering a criminal act. The justices seemed to vary in opinion from some supporting developing a bright line rule that would prohibit these sentences below a certain age. The Chief Justice seemed to prefer:

...to recruit a majority of the Supreme Court in favor of giving juveniles more chance to use their age to challenge life-without-parole prison terms, as an alternative to a flat constitutional bar against ever imposing that sentence.

There was this exchange with Sotomayor:

After Makar had said that Florida acknowledged that youthful age “does matter,” Justice Sotomayor asked for help in drawing the line where life-without-parole would be permissible. Would it be unconstituional if the youth were only 10? she asked. If that is too early, she said, why would 14 or 15 not be too early? Makar would only concede that “I think it [age] does matter.” Sotomayor was not satisfied, next asking about a no-release sentence for a five-year-old.

A five year old? I am sure that Sotomayor well knows that a 5 year old lacks the ability to form an intent to commit a crime. This seems like she wanted to be melodramatic. Lighten up Sonia.

I think the Founding Fathers did a good job in phrasing the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. They allowed for changes in society, as opposed to defining what was specifically cruel and unusual. In the late 18th century, all felonies were punished by death and children could receive pretty harsh punishments. Even as late at the early 20th century, punishments for juveniles were severe and due process was almost non-existent. Gradually, procedural safeguards were set up and, most recently, the Supreme Court said the death penalty could not be applied to juveniles.

I am leaning towards a ban on life sentences without parole for juveniles. Courts already have discretion in charging people under the age of 18 as adults. Most of the time, going through the juvenile system offers more flexibility in terms of treatments and punishments. While there are some youths that are likely incorrigible, this is hard to predict and there are certainly crimes that call for a life sentence. The problem is that I see too much potential for abuse, especially in a high profile case. What do the ATK readers think?