A Child’s Mistake Deserves a Child’s Consequence

Kathryn Lyle

Trial Search: Editorial Paper

April 8, 2011

A Child’s Mistake Deserves a Child’s Consequence

There are over 2,500 juveniles serving life sentences without parole (LWOP) in the United States currently. Sentencing juveniles to LWOP is equivalent to giving up on them. Is it right to give up on a kids who most likely have lived in unstable abusive homes their whole lives? All kids make mistakes some are more severe than others and some deserve punishment but punishment for a child is not taking their entire life away from them. Juveniles should not be sentenced to LWOP because first of all it is inhumane and violates the 8^th amendment, secondly adolescent brains have not fully developed yet, and lastly it costs thousands of dollars to send juveniles to prison not to mention LWOP, if we made LWOP for juveniles illegal we could spend less money for a more effective path of rehabilitation.

         

          Almost all juveniles as I stated before come from unstable homes living in poverty. Juveniles are not taught properly because many parents of juveniles abuse drugs and alcohol and cannot provide for their child. To charge kids with LWOP who don’t know any better is considered cruel and unusual punishment and violates the 8^th amendment. The 8^th amendment protects society from punishment that includes suffering and humiliation. This is referring to torture which was a form of punishment used years and years ago. Nowadays, we may not inflict physical suffering but LWOP for juveniles causes emotional suffering which in some cases may be worse. To inflict such a harsh punishment on a child is completely inhumane. Terrance Graham was just 17 when he was sentenced to LWOP. Graham was a repeat offender both crimes were armed robberies, and both were non-homicidal crimes. On appeal, Graham argued life sentences for juveniles who committed non-homicidal crimes violate the 8^th amendment but Florida did not agree, and he was sentenced for life imprisonment in 2006. The Supreme Court revisited this case in 2010 and then Terrance Graham’s voice was finally heard. The Supreme Court issued a law stating sentencing LWOP to juveniles for non-homicidal crimes violates the 8^th amendment and therefore it is against the law. Graham was then resentenced to what his lawyer predicted to be still a long time. This is the disturbing part: 129 adults are still serving non-parole life sentences for non-homicidal crimes that were committed when they were juveniles. That is cruel and unusual punishment that we should not put up with as U.S. citizens. We all have voices it’s time to talk, to yell; to fight for the children who can’t.

          The teenage brain is a spectacular, unique, and mysterious thing. Neuroscience specialists have been researching it for years now and the discoveries have been ground breaking. You may be a teenager, or you may know or have one of your own and yes you might believe teen brains work in different ways but most people are not aware of how prominent these differences are. Studies have shown that a teenage brain has difficulty with impulse control, judgment, planning, and decision making. All these characteristics help differentiate right from wrong and to prevent immediately acting on your emotions. When children's brains are not developed and they don't have those characteristics they cannot think throughly through a decision such as committing a crime as an adult would. Teens are also more vulnerable to peer pressure which happens when there is more than one person involved in the crime. Putting children in jail that have not even mentally developed yet is a morally wrong decision. The prefrontal cortex is the place in the brain where a person’s decision making and judgment skills take place. Studies have shown that the prefrontal cortex is not developed until the age of 25. If the prefrontal cortex is not developed until then, it is unethical to sentence underage criminals whose brains do not function well enough to make positive of negative choices. When teen brains are not fully developed their choices can be seen as stupid or irresponsible, teenagers are known for making mistakes it is what they do but they should not have their lives taken away by the court of law for the mistakes that they make.

          The cost of criminals placed in jail is something that most people are not aware of. On average it costs 43,000 dollars per year to pay for a juvenile in prison, that would mean if a juvenile was put into jail at the age of sixteen and died there at the age of 80 (an average lifespan) the government would have paid $2,752,000 for just one juvenile! If we did not sentence juveniles to LWOP we would be saving billions of dollars for our government. The few people that are aware of the cost of imprisonment of juveniles assume that most of this money is going towards rehabilitation but that is not true. Most of the money goes towards medical care, supervision, and operating costs for the juvenile. If we were to get rid of LWOP then those costs would go way down and then we could budget the money into rehabilitation programs which is a far more effective way to spend government money. This would protect society but also give juveniles a second chance to live productively in society. Spending millions of dollars for things such as supervision and operating costs are not effective ways to improve society. To be proactive with the government money we need to rehabilitate the juveniles and fix the real issues not ignore them and lock minors up only to throw millions of dollars out the window. 

          Yes, juveniles do need punishment for severe mistakes that they make but their punishment needs to be a child-like punishment not adult-like, LWOP is far too harsh for children. Not only does it violate the 8^th amendment it also costs thousands of dollars each year for every juvenile whom are not even fully developed in the brain yet. The law should not authorize waiving children into adult court which is how children are sentenced to life in prison, this is morally wrong. Imagine you little brother, the kid down the street, your child, or even yourself being sentenced to LWOP; imagine watching a life of a child taken away by the court of law. Would you stand there and watch a loved one leave a life behind or would you do something about it? It is your choice, just remember that, that juvenile who is sentenced to LWOP you hear about on the news is a son or a daughter, is a big brother, and is a best friend. That juvenile is person, a person that harbors hope beneath the surface, so what will you choose?

Interview Email Log

EMAIL LOG: INTERVIEW

Interview

I interviewed Jason Szanyi an attorney at Center for Children's Law and Policy in Washington, DC.  I asked him 12 questions concerning the Juvenile Justice System. Jason see's misdemeanor drug possession, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and robberies for boys on a daily bases during his job. For girls he stated that most of the crimes he usually deals with regularly are truancy, simple assault, and prostitution. Szanyi is completely against sentencing juveniles to lifetime imprisonment and is also against the death penalty in general. He stated that putting a child away in prison for life cuts against the juvenile courts purpose of rehabilitation. When asked about the flaws of the juvenile justice system he had a lot to say,"In every state, services aren’t funded at the level they would need to be in order to for the juvenile justice system to achieve its twin mandate of rehabilitation and accountability. The system relies too heavily on incarceration at facilities far away from a youth’s home, when evidence shows that community-based services are far more effective at reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Also, we arrest, prosecute, and lock up a disproportionate number of African-American and Latino youth." The last sentence of that quote hit on another important point concerning the juvenile justice system, racism. Szanyi said that he see's a lot of racism take place in juvenile court, stating that kids of color are put into the system substantially more  often and that the more often these kids are put into the system the harsher the punishment resulting in children of color receiving harsher punishment. When he started to talk about bias of gender I immediately assumed that males receive harsher punishments than females which in some cases would be unfair but Szanyi stated that females are locked up for things that normally boys wouldn't be. This is because the judge either feels the need to protect the girl or  because there are not as many good services for girls compared to the service boys receive. One of the most powerful things Szanyi said was when asked if lifetime imprisonment violates the 8th amendment. He stated that if you tell kids that they are impossible to rehabilitate, then that runs counter to the entire philosophy behind having a separate juvenile justice system. One the questions I asked was what do you consider cruel and unusual punishment? Szanyi said that on top of the death penalty and lifetime imprisonment he also feels that using pepper spray on a juvenile in a locked facility, using mechanical restraints, and placing juveniles in isolation rooms all violates the 8th amendment. Overall this interview persuaded me towards believing that juveniles should NOT be sentenced to life in prison, it gave me good solid information from a great source, and gave me a truthful look on how the juvenile justice system works from someone who is surrounded by it everyday! 

Conducting this interview was hard. Last week I emailed about 5 different candidates for interviews and all shut me down saying they didn't have time to answer my questions or simply did not respond, this was frustrating. I emailed three people for National Juvenile Defender Center including the deputy director, executive directer, and the senior policy and communication advisor and two people from the Youth Law Center who are both staff attorneys. Luckily, one of these people is Jason Szanyi colleague and forwarded my email to him. In the middle of this I also contacted a family friend Tom L’Esperance who is the Chef of Vermont State Police who I was planning on interviewing when no one had emailed me back from the other organizations. Unfortunately, Tom L’Esperance was on a business trip this week and I could not meet up with him for the interview. After I found out I would not be able to interview L’Esperance, Jason Szanyi emailed me back with answers to my interview questions. Although I could not call Mr. Szanyi on the phone for my interview due to the deadline, I feel I received more information through email because I wouldn’t have taken as good of notes compared to what Mr. Szanyi wrote. I enjoyed Szanyi’s answers because I could tell he spent time answering them and they included a lot of information that was helpful. Coming up with questions was very easy for me. Overall, I think I got was needed from this interview and although it was tough getting there it was a success in the end. 

Video Expressing The Con Side of this Issue

Here is a video showing that downside to sentencing juveniles to life in prison. It highlights how the juvenile and their families feel about their situations, and also shows how different the United States is from other countries concerning this issue. 

Video Con Side

This video is on the con side of this issue and includes court cases concerning this issue 

Stakeholders

Pro:

Many people believe that when a person is a threat to society and has no potential to change that status then they should be sentenced to life in prison, no matter how old they are, what their race is, or their gender. In simpler words they believe in equal punishment for all. Then there is a view on this issue that is still pro lifetime imprisonment for juveniles but they are more on the line, or in other words swaying toward the con side of this issue. They believe in some (rare) situations life imprisonment may be necessary. For example if a juvenile committed a brutal homicidal crime, when a juvenile is a treat to society, when there is no hope in rehabilitation, and when the juvenile cannot follow court orders properly. The law's goal is to protect the general public from threats such as criminals if the punishment they a assign to a juvenile achieves that goal then that is a the correct punishment, any more than that violates the 8th amendment. The population in which are pro take in to consideration the safety of society and also the family and friends in which the juvenile hurt. Imagine if a family member was brutally murdered by a 16 year old, would you want that 16 year old let out of prison 25 years later as a 41 year old with still half his life to live?

Con:

Those who don't believe in life time sentences given to juveniles wonder if fair treatment is the same as equal treatment? Should a 15 year old shoplifter be given the same punishment as a 30 year old shoplifter? The part of the population who are on the con side of this issue tend to be more forgiving of juveniles because they take the juveniles living situation and their childhood into consideration. Almost always the juvenile criminals have very troubled childhoods living in dangerous and unstable homes. Then there are those who are often neuroscience specialists that believe the development of the adolescent brain is the culprit to their impulsive decisions. Believing that juveniles shouldn't be put in jail for the rest of their lives doesn't mean that you don't believe in any punishment for juveniles who have broken the law they just see lifetime sentencing for juveniles as cruel and unusual punishment which means it violates the 8th amendment. Con believers think that taking in all aspects of the juveniles life and creating effective rehabilitation plans are an extremely important factors in the juvenile justice system. This issue has vast amounts of gray area where no one really has authority to draw the line at a certain age because all cases are different, all have exceptions or different details that sway you either way just for the specific case. Many people go back and forth of this issue including me its hard to take a side when each case is so unique, I understand why this issue is so controversial seeing how after many hours researching the topic I still can't decide which side I am on. 


A picture visually showing Brain development from adolescents to adults 

Patchin, Justin. "Juvenile Justice: Outlook." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society.

ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 3 Apr. 2011.

Patchin, Justin. "Juvenile Justice: Overview." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society.

ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 3 Apr. 2011.

Panel Day Reflections

The panelists at the Life Imprisonment for Juveniles panel were Beth Relyea, Andy Strauss, and David Jacques. Generally, Beth stated that she was more forgiving of juveniles she felt that minors should be given second chances in court and should not be given life sentences. Andy, a lawyer and David, a parole officer felt slightly differently. Both thought that in some situations life sentences are necessary to protect the general public.  When asked about the death penalty Beth immediately responded no, David said yes, and Andy said to protect society sometimes it is needed. These answers reflected on the level harshness of their beliefs on other issues such as lifetime imprisonment of juveniles. Personally, I agree with Andy, sometimes certain cases truly do threaten the public and for that we must prevent further crimes on innocent people and sentence some juveniles to life in prison. That being said the crime must fit the punishment, the court should give the very least punishment to a juvenile that can protect the public anymore than that violates the 8th amendment. All panelists agreed that rehabilitation is an important factor of the Juvenile Justice System, Andy went further to say that when sentencing lifetime imprisonment to a Juvenile all members in court should agree that the juvenile is beyond rehabilitation on top of being a threat to society. I agree with this as well, and for juveniles not being sentenced to life in prison but are still being charged rehabilitation is key to prevent possibly more juveniles in prison for the rest of their lives. 
                                                                                                                                       

Annotated Bibliography

Juvenile Justice Videos: 13 year old receives life without parole

State Statistics

California: A juvenile in California is a child under the age of 18. Any child over 14 years of age can be tried in adult criminal court if crime involved murder, rape, or armed robbery. 

New York: A juvenile in the State of New York is anyone under the age of 16 and at least 7 years old. Children 13-15 can be tried as an adult in New York if serious crimes have been committed. 

Illinois: In the state of Illinois a juvenile is a child under the age of 17. Anyone 13 years old and above can be tried as an adult if he or she has previous criminal record. Juveniles of the age of 15 and 16 are immediately tried as an adult if the crime they committed involved murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and armed robbery with a firearm.

Florida: In Florida the juvenile age is under 18. In Florida prosecutors are allowed to determine whether the juvenile will be tried as an adult not a judge. To be waived over into adult court juveniles must be at least 14 years old 

Texas: In Texas the juvenile age bracket is 10-under 18. The waiver age to transfer juveniles to adult court is the minimum age of 14. 

Map of how states give juvenile lifetime imprisonment sentences

The map above shows where juveniles were sentenced to lifetime imprisonment for non-homicidal crimes before the U.S. Supreme Court  issued a law forbidding giving life sentence to juveniles who have not committed murder. 

Panel Questions

• After the Supreme Court voted not to have capital punishment for juveniles were all inmates that are adults now but were juveniles when they committed their crime who were put on the death row able to alter their sentence and prevent the death penalty? 
• Do you believe 15 and 16 years old should be sentenced to lifetime imprisonment in they commit murder?
• Do you think it is fair that 19 years old are sentenced to death penalty if they commit murder?
• Do you believe in transferring juveniles that are 12-18 years of age to adult criminal court? 
•  Would you say that if a juvenile's committed crime is rape then they should be up for lifetime imprisonment with parole as their sentence? 

Interviews

 Woodside Rehabilitation Center

ADDRESS: 26 Woodside Dr. East
Colchester, VT 05446
LOCATION: Colchester, Vermont 

NAME: David Emberley, M.A.Ed., C.T., Volunteer Coordinator 

PHONE: (802) 655-4990

Maguire Law Associates, 
ADDRESS: 11 Main Street, Suite 2Essex Junction, Vermont
NAME: Daniel Maguire
PHONE OF PRACTICE:  888-274-4730

 EMAIL: you can email the practice though www.lawyers.com 

NAME: Peter Danles 
JOB: Vermont Parole Board Member
PHONE: (802) 241-2312

EMAIL:pdanles@doc.state.vt.us.

Court Cases

Graham vs. Florida
Terrance Graham was only 16 years old when he was convicted of attempted armed robbery and armed burglary. He served 12 months is prison and was then later released. Six months after his release he committed armed home robbery and was then sentenced to lifetime imprisonment without parole. This is an extremely rare case because its a juvenile being sentenced to life imprisonment when the juvenile was not convicted of murder.  On appeal, Graham argued that sentencing lifetime imprisonment without parole to a juvenile is violating the 8th amendment and moreover constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The state of Florida did not agree and therefore Terrance Graham was sentenced to lifetime imprisonment for a non-homicidal crime in 2006. In 2010, last year this case was brought up again, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spoke on behalf of the majority of the country who believed that non-homicidal cases of juveniles should not be sentenced to life imprisonment because it completely violates the 8th amendment not to mention the idea of it is rejected by the entire world. This case was soon taken to the Supreme Court where Grahams voice was finally heard. On May 17th 2010 the Supreme court voted 6-3 meaning that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole when the crime was non-homicidal . However, there are still currently 129 adults serving non-parole lifetime imprisonment sentences that were committed as juveniles, 77 of those people are located in Florida. Terrance Graham is now being re-sentenced, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has stated that he will still receive a long sentence for the violent crimes he did commit but not a lifetime sentence. 


Roper v. Simmons 
In 1993 Christopher Simmons brutally murdered Shirley Crook at the age of 17. When the case went on trial the Simmons confessed to murder and even reenacted the murder at the crime scene on videotape. The jury soon recommended the death penalty because of the brutality of the murder and the vast amount of evidence. The courts continued to uphold the death sentence until 2002 when the Atkins v. Virginia case occurred, which overturned the death penalty for the mentally retarded. After that case Simmons filed for a petition for state post conviction relief. Meaning modification of his sentence. Simmons was then sentenced to lifetime imprisonment without parole instead of the death penalty. This case further created the law that the U.S. Supreme Court voted on in which juveniles cannot receive capital punishment (death penalty.) 

Information found on Oyez Database

Current Interpretation

According to the death penalty information center, on May 5, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that juveniles (people under the age of 18) cannot be sentenced to death penalty for the crimes they committed. This law also applies to people that are over the age of 18 currently but their crime was committed when they were underage. One of the main reasons why this law was pursued was because it was violating several international treaties most importantly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The U.S. Supreme court also felt a great deal of international pressure where everyone was fully against juveniles sentenced to the death penalty. The juvenile justice system varies from state to state, for example currently in Nevada all juveniles have the right to and are required to have a juvenile court hearing before being transferred if necessary to the adult criminal court according to NCSL (National Conference of State Legislators.) In Vermont the extended age of delinquency jurisdiction is age 20, the usual age bracket of the juvenile justice system in Vermont is 10-17 compared to Texas which is 10-16 instead according to NCJJ State Juvenile Justice Profiles. Generally the basic current laws concerning the juvenile justice system are children under the age of 7 cannot be tried even in juvenile court,  children 7-15 are main candidates for the juvenile court, and children ages 12-18 can be tried in the adult criminal court if their crime is extremely severe such as murder, but if homicide is not involved typically they will be tried in juvenile court according to www.criminal.findlaw.com. Sometime juveniles are tried in adult criminal court for crimes such as armed robbery and rape which are also severe crimes but not as harsh as murder, so minors who have committed armed robbery and rape have a better chance at being tried in juvenile court.  

 http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=19713

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/u-s-supreme-court-roper-v-simmons-no-03-633

http://70.89.227.250:8080/stateprofiles/

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/juvenile-justice/when-minor-commits-crime.html

Constitutional Connection

The 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, no excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This amendment forbids some punishment entirely like for example sentencing juvenile death penalty is against the law. Mostly the 8th amendment prevents cruel and unusual punishment inflicted compared to the crime or compared to the competence of the perpetrator. In the Constitution it states what I explained above but does not explain what is considered cruel and unusual punishment, so is giving juveniles lifetime imprisonment cruel or not depending on the severeness of the committed crime? This is another reason that this issue is controversial. 

Issue Explanation

The definition of justice is fair treatment for all people in the distribution of the benefits and burdens of society, the correction of wrongs and injuries, and the gathering of information and making of decisions. But does fair treatment mean equal treatment for all as well? Is is fair to give equal treatment and punishment to adults and minors in the court of law? Many people think that the punishments should be equal. A lot of people believe that if a minor commits murder then murder is murder and that someone who commits that kind of crime should definitely be sentenced to lifetime imprisonment. Others have a completely different view on this issue, some believe that minors brains are not fully mature so they are emotionally different from adults, this effects the process of decision making. A process in which could have prevented pursuing the crime if their brain was matured. And some believe it is just wrong to take away a life of a juvenile for the crime they committed as a child.Currently, the law states that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death penalty but if the crime committed involves homicide then a juvenile can be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.This is a controversial issue because its hard to draw the line at certain ages when every case has different circumstances and when fairly executed punishments turn into cruel and unusual penalties. Who has the authority to decide where the line must be drawn when that line can and will effect the lives of thousands of juveniles across the country? 

Homework #1 Due 3/22/11

There were approximately 2,180,500 juvenile arrests in the United States during 2007 according to the FBI Arrest Statistics. On average this number relatively has stayed the same until now (2011.) 97,070 of those total arrests were violent crimes. Violent crimes include murder (not manslaughter), forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery. When a person under the age of 18 commits a crime should the punishment be the same as a 34 year-old's? A 51 year-old's? Should the law only look at the crime and not the characteristics of the person who committed it? Is a crime a crime? Or does your view on a version of punishment change when you see for example the 13 year old receiving it? These are the questions that have not been answered because who really has the right to draw the line at a certain age? Believe it or not in 2007 1,350 murders were committed by underage people and 12,130 murders were committed by adults. The question we must answer is what age is it right to sentence life in jail to.Who deserves adult-like punishment and who does not? 

 Questions:

• Do juvenile punishments differ depending on which state you live in?
• What are the most famous court cases concerning this topic?
• What is the biological evidence that supports NOT sentencing the underage to life imprisonment? (brain development, etc.)