As I have seen in Haiti, in Rwanda, and in the other countries where I have lived - and in the prisons, squatter settlements, and cities, rich and poor, in which I’ve worked - people share certain innate human values. One of them is that children should be afforded greater care, protection, and forgiveness.
And when I return to the United States, I am reminded that a group of our children - some of them as young as 13 - are separated from their families and communities for the rest of their lives, even if they are later rehabilitated and no longer deemed to pose a threat to others.
Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children must not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishments, including capital punishment or life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Only two nations in the world have not ratified this convention: Somalia and the United States. It is noteworthy that sentences of life without parole for juveniles were uncommon in the United States before the 1990s, a period of fear about a potential rise in juvenile crime that was based on data later proven false.
The United States stands apart from its European allies in perpetuating this violation of human rights. In Italy, the maximum sentence for a person under 18 for any crime is 24 years. In Germany, it is 10 years. In England and Wales, judges must impose a sentence that is roughly half the term that an adult would be given in the same circumstances. The English law is particularly instructive, given the historic ties between the two countries and the fact that American law is largely derived from England’s. In fact, the Eighth Amendment traces its roots to the Magna Carta.
There are those who argue that international laws and norms should have no bearing on how the United States decides to dispense justice. But having treated thousands of children all over the world, I can say with confidence that American children are not more vicious, less human, or less deserving of mercy and compassion than children in any other country. Every other nation in the world finds ways to hold young people accountable for their actions without sentencing them to languish in prison until they die. The United States must do the same for its children.
Jonathon Todres wrote the OpEd, "Is there no redemption for children?," for the Friday edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Todres teaches law at Georgia State University.
What is striking about these cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, is they entail the permanent denial of freedom for juveniles who, though they committed serious crimes, did not commit homicides. Such sentences for juveniles express more than just the view that these children are beyond rehabilitation.
In effect, they are a societal admission that we do not believe we are capable of teaching children to do better.
When we sentence a 13-year-old or 17-year-old to life in prison without any chance of parole, we not only convey our views on the child’s actions, we also make a powerful statement about ourselves.
Such a penalty, when given to a child, says we do not believe that child can ever change. And because it is our job as adults to mentor children, we are conceding that we don’t have confidence as a society that we will provide the necessary guidance to ensure that child becomes a productive member of society.
Why do we have such little faith in ourselves, and our children?
Children today face high expectations. For example, zero tolerance policies permit no mistakes.
Yet neuroscience and psychological research tells us what parents and teachers already know from their day-to-day care of children — that is, children’s brains are wired differently and sometimes they make poor choices.
The choices made by Sullivan and Graham were terrible ones, for which there must be consequences. But have we lost all faith in our ability to steer kids in the right direction?
Currently, our punishment framework is a discouraging one-way ratchet. Even when children do not break the law, we do not allow them to participate fully in society.
No matter how well a child behaves, how mature and thoughtful his or her decision-making, we do not allow them to vote, enter into contracts, serve on juries, drink alcohol, drive a car below a certain age or do any number of other things adults can do. We do that because we do not believe they have reached maturity.
Yet when children make bad decisions and commit bad acts, we insist they were mature enough that they should suffer adult consequences. The message is clear to children: There are no rewards for good behavior, but there are serious punishments for bad behavior.
We need to rethink this unbalanced stance.
The preceding post contained editorials and a link to earlier coverage; next, the oral argument previews.
Comments