Oral arguments in Sullivan v. Florida will be ending shortly in the U.S. Supreme Court. Graham v. Florida was heard earlier this morning. Transcripts of the oral arguments will be available here, later today.
We have preview from some of the best, most experienced Court watchers. I'd urge readers interested in the case to read each preview in full.
We'll start with the Dean of Supreme Court reporters, Lyle Denniston, who posted, "Inquiring into the juvenile mind," for SCOTUS Blog.
Four years after ending the death penalty for any minor who commits murder, the Supreme Court now is ready to analyze the next most severe penalty for a juvenile: life in prison without any chance of release, for a crime in which the victim is not killed. The issue will be examined in cases involving teenagers who were 13 and 17 at the time of their crimes — the 13-year-old convicted of sexual battery, the other youth convicted at age 17 of probation violation following a felony robbery when he was 16. Once again, the Court is inquiring into the degree of moral responsibility of minors, as well as into current moral standards, as factors in punishing youthful offenders.
The Supreme Court has said repeatedly, as it decided death-penalty cases (often putting limits on such sentences, or ruling them out altogether in some situations, that “death is different.” That perception has led to a complex jurisprudence of capital punishment, including a flat ban on that penalty for some specific crimes (rape, for example) and some individuals in a specific group (minors and mentally impaired individuals).
The Court, however, has not yet constructed a full constitutional guidebook for long prison sentences, although it has settled on one principle: a sentence for a term of years in prison will be struck down if it is “grossly dispoportionate” to the crime, judged on a case-by-case, rather than across-the-board, basis. Applying that test, the Court looks at how serious the crime was, how harsh the penalty was, and how a sentence compares to that for other criminals in the same area, and in other areas, for the same crime.
Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has taken that principle to mean that each case must be judged on its own facts, so that a blanket rule is not to be adopted– either for a category of crimes, or a specific group of criminals. Thus, for juvenile offenders, it said in one of the cases now before the Supreme Court: “This court declines to implement a per se ban on the sentencing of juveniles to life imprisonment.” And, in that case, it found that the sentence of life without possibility of parole was not “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.
In reaching that conclusion, the state court started with the proposition that “death is different.” And that, in brief, provides the test for the Supreme Court as it examines a life prison sentence, with no chance of release, for a youth who committed a non-homicide crime while still a minor. But the Court also is being asked to reinforce the cultural notion that “being young is different,” for criminal responsibility.
The Court already has given some indication that it will at least begin its analysis by looking at different scenarios. Instead of granting review of a single case involving a life term for a minor whose victim was not killed, the Court simultaneously accepted two cases, did not join them for review, and set them for hearing separately. At least at the outset, it appears that two rulings, not one, are likely to emerge.
There are several differences between the two cases: each youth’s age at the time of the crime — one was 13 when he actually received the life term, the other was 17 at the time of the crime and 19 when sentenced; one youth committed multiple crimes as a younger teenager, the older youth had several crimes on his record when given the life sentence after getting lenient treatment after his first crime; one case brought a full review in the lower court of the sentencing issue, the other did not; one is clearly within the Court’s authority to hear the constittional issue, the other has some procedural doubt about it.
No one outside the Court can know which of those differences may have persuaded the Court to grant both cases. However, that may begin to become clear when the Court hears oral argument.
"Weighing Life in Prison for Youths Who Didn’t Kill," is Adam Liptak's preview from the Sunday New York Times.
Outside the context of the death penalty, the Supreme Court has generally allowed states to decide for themselves what punishments fit what crimes. But the court barred the execution of juvenile offenders in 2005 by a vote of 5 to 4, saying that people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer pressure and often capable of change.
A ruling extending that reasoning beyond capital cases “could be the Brown v. Board of Education of juvenile law,” said Paolo G. Annino, the director of the Children’s Advocacy Clinic at Florida State University’s law school. Judges, legislators and prosecutors in Florida agree that the state takes an exceptionally tough line on juvenile crime.
But they are deeply divided about when sentences of life without the possibility of release are warranted.
“Sometimes a 15-year-old has a tremendous appreciation for right and wrong,” said State Representative William D. Snyder, a Republican who is chairman of the House’s Criminal and Civil Justice Policy Council. “I think it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to say that it was patently illegal or improper to send a youthful offender to life without parole. At a certain point, juveniles cross the line, and they have to be treated as adults and punished as adults.”
A retired Florida appeals court judge, John R. Blue, did not see it that way. “To lock them up forever seems a little barbaric to me,” Judge Blue said. “You ought to leave them some hope.”
Several factors in combination — some legal, some historical, some cultural — help account for the disproportionate number of juvenile lifers in Florida.
Nina Totenberg files, "High Court Weighs Life Terms For Minors," for NPR.
Joe Sullivan was 13 years old when he was convicted of raping a 72-year-old woman. Two older defendants who had broken into the woman's house with Joe fingered their younger accomplice for the rape, and they got lesser sentences. Joe had a long record of misdemeanors, from stealing a bike to burglary. This, however, was his first felony, and the judge, declaring that the boy before him was "beyond help," sentenced him to life in prison without parole.
Terrance Graham was 16 when he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery of a restaurant in which one of his accomplices hit the restaurant manager over the head with a steel pipe. Graham served one year in jail, then was released on probation. Six months later he was arrested fleeing the scene of an armed home invasion robbery.
The judge revoked his probation, but rejected the four-year prison sentence recommended by the Department of Corrections and instead sentenced Graham, by then 17, to life in prison without parole. "If I can't do anything to help you," said the judge, "then I have to . . . protect the community from your actions."
Both cases are from Florida, which is fitting: Of the 109 juveniles serving life terms for non-homicide offenses across the country, 70 percent are in the Sunshine State.
Four years ago, when the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for juveniles, the justices said that offenders younger than 18 are "substantially less culpable" because of their "youth and immaturity." The court said juveniles are far more subject to peer pressure, have less impulse control and less ability to see the consequences of their actions. But the court also said that death is different from any other penalty because it is permanent.
Bryan Stevenson, who represents Joe Sullivan, concedes that there is a difference between the death penalty and life without parole. But he says that a life term is different from other prison sentences because it denies the prisoner any hope for a future. "They're just two different kinds of death sentences," he contends. "One is death by execution, the other death by incarceration."
Stevenson notes that the law generally treats 13- and 14- year-olds as so immature that they are not allowed to drive, to marry and even in some states, to get a tattoo.
And he says that juveniles are particularly unable to defend themselves. His client, who maintained his innocence, was represented by a lawyer who filed no appeals and was later disbarred.
Intellectually impaired since his childhood, the then 13-year-old Sullivan tried to help police replicate the tone of voice that the victim said the rapist used, and the victim, who did not see her assailant, said it was "similar."
Although Florida officials refused to comment for this story, 19 states, led by Louisiana, have filed a brief supporting life sentences without parole for juveniles in non-homicide cases. "I disagree that the juvenile crimes are any less culpable than the adult crimes," says Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell. "These are young criminals. That's what they are, and the ones who are getting these sentences are the worst of those."
Warren Richey wrotes, "Supreme Court case: juvenile offenders serving life in prison," for the Christian Science Monitor.
Life without parole for a juvenile is similar to the imposition of a death sentence, says Sullivan's lawyer, Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Ala. In both cases, the punishment is disproportionate to the moral culpability of the offender, he says.
"A child's character is still in flux," Mr. Stevenson writes in his brief. "They are unfinished products, human works-in-progress.... Their potential for growth and change is enormous. Almost all of them will outgrow criminal behavior."
"Juveniles are more malleable and capable of reform than adults," writes Graham's lawyer, Bryan Gowdy, in his brief. "It is cruel to simply give up on them."
Only two individuals in the United States are serving life prison terms for nonhomicide crimes committed at age 13. Both are in Florida. In addition to Florida, five states have sentenced juveniles to life in prison for nonhomicide crimes: Louisiana, Iowa, California, Nebraska, and South Carolina.
Nationwide, an estimated 2,500 inmates are serving life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles; 109 of those sentences were handed down for nonhomicide crimes.
No national consensus has emerged against the imposition of life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, says Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar. Forty-two states permit such sentences, and 38 of them allow it for nonhomicides, Florida, Graham v. Florida, incarceration, Jonathon Todres, juvenile, life sentence, life without parole, OpEd, Paul Farmer, sentencing, Smith v. Florida, Supreme Court he says.
Mr. Makar acknowledges social science and medical research show that juveniles are developmentally different from adults and thus less culpable for their crimes. But, he says, state lawmakers were aware of these findings when they adopted sentencing laws that include age as a factor.
The AP preview, "High court to look at life in prison for juveniles," is by Mark Sherman.
Joe Sullivan was sent away for life for raping an elderly woman and judged incorrigible though he was only 13 at the time of the attack.
Terrance Graham, implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17, was given a life sentence by a judge who told the teenager he threw his life away.
They didn't kill anyone, but they effectively were sentenced to die in prison.
Life sentences with no chance of parole are rare and harsh for juveniles tried as adults and convicted of crimes less serious than killing. Just over 100 prison inmates in the United States are serving those terms, according to data compiled by opponents of the sentences.
Now the Supreme Court is being asked to say that locking up juveniles and throwing away the key is cruel and unusual — and thus, unconstitutional. Other than in death penalty cases, the justices never before have found that a penalty crossed the cruel-and-unusual line. They will hear arguments Monday.
Graham, now 22, and Sullivan, now 33, are in Florida prisons, which hold more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for nonhomicide crimes. Although their lawyers deny their clients are guilty, the court will consider only whether the sentences are permitted by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's latest look at how to punish young criminals flows directly from its 4-year-old decision to rule out the death penalty for anyone younger than 18.
In that 2005 case decided by a 5-4 vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion talked about "the lesser culpability of the juvenile offender."
"From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed," Kennedy said.
Yet Kennedy also acknowledged the possibility that for the worst crimes and the worst offenders, "the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person."
Both sides point to the same basic facts — the rare imposition of Draconian prison terms on people so young — to make their point.
"US Supreme Court to examine life behind bars for juveniles," is the AFP filing by Lucile Malandain.
The US Supreme Court will Monday wrestle with the merits of convicting juveniles who have not committed murder to life in prison without the possibility of parole -- a fate shared by 109 US prisoners, almost all of whom are non-white.
The nine justices will consider two separate cases to determine whether handing out sentences that effectively leave a juvenile to die in prison violates the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen writes, "Young Lives, Long Sentences," for Court Watch.
It costs a minimum of $20,000 per year to incarcerate someone in America these days. In Sullivan's case, if he lives to be 75, he will have been in prison for 60 years. That's at least $1.2 million Florida will have spent on him by the time he dies an old man in a jail cell. Multiply that by 75 (roughly the number of other juveniles so sentenced in Florida) and the cost for these prisoners alone over their lifetime would be over $100 million.
And don't forget — these 77 juvenile offenders are just a small percentage of the state's overall prison population.
It's unlikely that the economic case against automatic life sentences will garner much time or attention during oral argument in these two cases. The Justices may or may not countermand Florida's sentencing scheme on Eighth Amendment grounds, but they certainly won't meddle with the state's financial commitment to its prison system absent a showing that prisoners there are being denied basic human rights due to overcrowding. That's happened in California — but so far not in Florida.
No, in Florida, the question again is whether young people have constitutional protections against punishment which adults do not.
"Kids Locked Up for Life," is Vince Beiser's post at the Atlantic.
Life without parole for juveniles caught on during the hysteria over crack and youth gangs in the 1980s, part of a wave of tough-on-crime legislation that has quadrupled America's prison population to a record-shattering 2.3 million inmates. Almost every state as well as the federal government permits it. But now, with crime rates far lower, that punishment is coming under fire from a growing number of lawmakers, jurists, activists and even crime victims. Today the debate reaches a head as the Supreme Court takes up Graham's case and another, involving Joe Sullivan, who was convicted of burglary and rape at age 13.
Earlier coverage begins with the preceding post.
Comments