"Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black," is the title of Liliana Segura's post at AlterNet.
Monday's oral arguments covered a lot of ground, including whether life-without-parole is comparable to the death penalty (which has been banned for juveniles); whether the purpose, ultimately, is about deterrence or retribution -- "What is the State's interest in keeping ... the defendant in custody for the rest of his life if he has been rehabilitated and is no longer a real danger?" -- whether, for sentencing purposes, there's any practical difference between a 13-year-old or a 10-year-old -- or, for that matter, an 18-year-old and a 17-and-11-month-old ("the line has to be drawn somewhere.") At points, it got downright philosophical ("Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope, but an adult does not?" asked Justice Kennedy.) But at the center of the argument was the question of whether children -- and their potential for rehabilitation -- should be judged by the same standards as that of grown-ups. "To not recognize the difference between a child and an adult is cruel and unusual," defense attorney Bryan Stevenson told Justice Antonin Scalia.
Conspicuously absent from the oral arguments, however, was any discussion of race. The one time Stevenson attempted to mention it, as one of the "arbitrary features" of the distribution of life-without-parole sentences -- these prisoners are "disproportionately kids of color," Stevenson said -- he was interrupted by Justice Alito, who questioned the reliability of his statistics. ("What is your response to the State's argument that these statistics are not peer-reviewed?" he asked.)
It can be tricky to pin down exact numbers when it comes to specific prison populations from state to state, particularly given the differences between sentencing statutes across the country. And states have not traditionally kept track of how many juveniles are in their adult prisons. But when it comes to juvenile lifers, there are some figures that have been widely accepted (and not contested by the state of Florida.)
"There are 73 children 14 and younger who have been imprisoned for life without parole," Stevenson told the Court. "...For the age of 13 and younger, there are only nine kids, and that's including both kids convicted of homicide and non-homicide. For non-homicide, there are only two. They are both in Florida and Joe Sullivan is one of them."
What he did not get to say is that of the vast majority of kids who are sentenced to die in prison are black.
This is unfortunate. Racism has been central to the policies that led to the rise in life sentences for juveniles in the first place -- and not just in Florida. The Supreme Court may rely on legal precedents to make their decisions -- but that does not mean it necessarily considers history.
At TownHall.com, Ken Klukowski posts, "Court Should Uphold Life Without Parole for Minors."
The two current cases are the predictable result of the 2005 decision Roper v. Simmons. In Roper, a 5–4 divided Court held that applying the death penalty is unconstitutional if the perpetrator was under 18 when he committed the crime. That case involved a home robbery where the woman victim saw the 17 year-old robber’s face. Realizing he had been seen, he kidnapped the woman, bound her with duct tape, and threw her off a bridge to drown in a river. A Missouri court sentenced the murderer to death, but the Supreme Court struck down that penalty.
The most troubling aspect of Roper, however, was its reliance on foreign law to interpret the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. It cited the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that the United States has never ratified. Citing that treaty and the laws in other nations, the Court (in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy) reasoned that these foreign sources helped define what is “cruel and unusual” means in our Constitution.
Some are pushing for the Court to consider foreign law again in deciding the current cases.
The second of these Nov. 9 cases, Sullivan, may not be decided on the merits. There is a strong argument that under Florida law the time for making this claim ran out years ago. If so, then there’s no jurisdiction to hear the case, and it could just be dismissed.
But there’s no such obstacle in the Graham case, so the Court is going to have to decide the question of whether the sentence is unconstitutional.
Graham’s argument is summed up in his lawyer’s opening statement, that sentencing life without parole is essentially a death sentence and, “cruelly ignores the inherent qualities of youth and the differences between adolescents and adults.”
Ben Smith posts, "Life in prison at 13," at the Indiana Daily Student.
The United States is, in fact, the only nation in the world that still allows children to be sentenced to life in prison without any hope for parole.
These are, perhaps, the most extreme illustrations of the American criminal justice program’s harsh treatment of juveniles. The crimes in question were violent, and to a certain degree, they deserve a harsh penalty. But even when it comes to more inconsequential crimes, the justice system can be proportionately irrational.
When I was in high school, for example, a friend of mine was arrested for stealing a pack of Mountain Dew off the back of a delivery truck. He spent multiple nights in jail awaiting his court date, despite the fact that his theft amounted to less than $10 in value.
We’ve all heard the warning: Keep your life straight, or else you’ll find yourself trapped within the confines of the “system,” which is relentless and unforgiving. But when the justice system perpetuates criminal behavior with- out working actively to reform or rehabilitate individuals – and in particular, juveniles – it is entirely dysfunctional.
If the Supreme Court rules that sentencing juveniles to life without parole is unconstitutional, then America’s penal system will be made more effective and more humane. But I think we are a far cry from having a program that maintains law and order appropriately.
If our criminal justice system operated more out of motives of compassion and support, which is often what juvenile offenders need, rather than uncompromising punishment, then maybe our justice system would be successful in its endeavors to reform.
Earlier coverage begins with the preceding post.
Comments