By: Sarah Johnson
This week we’ll be taking a deep dive into Juvenile Lifers and the court cases and legislation impacting this issue over the last decade. Juvenile Lifers is a term used to describe people serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed as juveniles (known as juvenile life-without-parole or JLWOP). The United States is the only country in the world that sentences people to life-without-parole for crimes committed before turning 18. Some states have been looking at reducing the time until people can be considered for parole, while many people are having conversations about whether or not JLWOP inmates should be considered for early release due to COVID. Let’s dive in.
Supreme Court Cases about JLWOP
There are several very impactful Supreme Court cases that have been instrumental in moving the country towards no longer sentencing juveniles to life. The Sentencing Project has a great overview of the following cases which I’ll summarize for historical context before talking about relevant legislation.
Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989)
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1989 held that executing minors was not unconstitutional, and that instead there was no national consensus on it. It ruled that because of the discrepancies (of the 37 states which permitted capital punishment at the time, 12 prohibited the death penalty for offenders below the age of 17 and 15 prohibited capital punishment for 16 year olds) proved the decision must be made locally by the states due to the lack of agreement. They ruled that they could not categorically pronounce this sentence as cruel and unusual punishment at the time.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled Stanford was invalid and that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death because it did in fact violate the federal constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments in the Eighth Amendment. The legislation and national conversation since Stanford showed that a majority of Americans were now opposed to the execution of minors. The court stated that because of their immaturity and the fact they are particularly susceptible to outside pressures and influences, juveniles’ culpability is diminished. They also held that juveniles have a heightened capacity for reform, meaning they are entitled to a separate set of punishments.
At that point in time, 23 of the 38 States which authorized the death penalty permitted the execution of offenders who committed capital offenses prior to their 18th birthday. This ruling impacted 72 juveniles on death row in 12 states.
Graham v. Florida, 130 S. CT. 2011 (2010)
The next important ruling for JLWOP was in 2010, when the Court the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicidal crime. The Court ruled that precedent recognized the harshest punishment should be limited to only the most serious crimes (those involving homicide), stating that non-homicide offenses did not warrant the harshest punishment available, which for juveniles at this time was JLWOP. The Court noted life sentences for juveniles for non-homicidal crimes had been “rejected the world over.” This ruling applied to at least 123 prisoners – the majority of which (77 people) had been sentenced in Florida.
After the decisions from Roper and Graham took effect, roughly 2,500 people were still serving sentences of life-without-parole for homicide-related offenses they committed as juveniles. The next step in addressing this issue was recognizing many of these people were given this sentence due mandatory sentencing guidelines within their state. Mandatory sentencing guidelines do not allow courts to assess the case and hand down a punishment that fits the situation and crime (an important aspect of the Roper decision).
Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)
In 2012, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders, and, that children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. Justice Kagan stated that adolescence is marked by “transient rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences,” all factors that should lessen the punishment received by juveniles. He went on to state that judges must be able to consider the characteristics of the juvenile defendant in order to issue a fair, individualized sentence.
After this ruling, states could not sentence juveniles to life-without-parole because of mandatory sentencing guidelines. The Justices in this ruling left it up to states to interpret whether or not this ruling applied retroactively. After this, the states that still imposed JLWOP sentences applied the decision inconsistently. Some state’s Supreme Courts ruled that Miller applied retroactively, while others Courts ruled Miller was not retroactive, and other states did not bring cases to their Court, but instead passed legislation stating the decision applied retroactivity.
Montgomery v. Louisiana 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)
In 2016, the question of whether or not the Miller decision apply retroactively was settled. The Court held that when the Court establishes a substantive constitutional rule, that rule must apply retroactively because such a rule provides for constitutional rights that go beyond procedural guarantees. Justice Kennedy wrote that Miller found “children are constitutionally different from adults in their level of culpability.” Because of this ruling, all existing JLWOP sentences imposed by a mandatory statue were invalidated. Kennedy also noted the severest punishment (JLWOP) must be reserved “for the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.”
Who are the People Serving JLWOP Sentences?
According to according to The Sentencing Project, 20 states and DC have no prisoners serving JLWOP sentences. There are no individuals in these states either because they have passed laws prohibiting JLWOP sentences, or, because at this time, there are no individuals serving a JLWOP sentence. Of the 28 states who still allow JLWOP sentences, two-thirds of the JLWOP prisoners live in three states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Louisiana. Of the existing JLWOP sentences, about 80 percent of the offenders are people of color. The Sentencing Project released the following information from a survey of JLWOP offenders in 2012:
- 79% witnessed violence in their homes regularly
- 32% grew up in public housing
- 40% had been enrolled in special education classes
- Fewer than half were attending school at the time of their offense
- 47% were physically abused
- 80% of girls reported histories of physical abuse and 77% of girls reported histories of sexual abuse
The Sentencing Project also found that the sentencing rate for these crimes is very disproportionate. When examining crimes were a Black person is suspected of killing a white person (23.2% of the juvenile arrests), the conviction rate for this crime is much higher. Of all JLWOP sentences, 42.4% are for a Black person convicted of killing a white person (nearly two times the arrest rate of these types of crimes). When looking at white juvenile offenders with Black victims, they are about half as likely to receive a JLWOP sentence as their proportion of arrests for killing a Black person (about 6.4% are arrested, but only 3.6% are convicted).
Legislation
Many states have been passing legislation which retroactively eliminated life-without parole sentences for juveniles before the Montgomery decision in 2016. The following states passed legislation which stated Miller applied retroactively: Delaware, Texas, and Wyoming in 2013, Hawaii and Washington in 2014, Connecticut and Vermont in 2015, South Dakota and Utah in 2016, and New Jersey in 2017. Other states ruled Miller applied retroactively, and put forth their own interesting laws about JLWOP.
In 2014, Massachusetts passed legislation stating juveniles (ages 14-17) convicted of first-degree murder would be sentenced to life with eligibility of parole after at least after serving 20 years, but no longer than serving 30 years. If a first-degree murder was committed “with extreme atrocity or cruelty,” parole eligibility is fixed at 30 years, otherwise, it was to be set by the courts. West Virginia also passed legislation in 2014 eliminating life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, stating offenders must be eligible for parole after serving 15 years. Their bill also says the parole board must ensure a “meaningful opportunity” for the juvenile offender to obtain release and that it must consider, among other things, the “diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to that of adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner during incarceration.”
In 2015, Iowa passed SF448, giving prosecutors the option to seek life-without-parole sentences for specific cases of convicted juveniles. The next year, State v. Sweet eliminated life without parole for juveniles and overturned SF448. Nevada’s bill, also passed in 2015, had the retroactive clause only apply to people who were not convicted of an offense resulting in the death of two or more people. After the bill passed, juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses in Nevada were now eligible for parole after serving 15 years, and those convicted of homicides involving 1 person were eligible after 20 years.
In 2016, Colorado passed two pieces of legislation relating to JLWOP. First, SB181 stated juveniles convicted of Class 1 felonies shall be sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after serving 40 years, less any earned time. The bill also stipulates earned time cannot exceed 25% of the sentence. Second, SB180 created specialized program within the Colorado Department of Corrections specifically for juveniles convicted of felonies as adults and sentenced to long prison terms. After serving 20-25 years of their sentence, depending on the severity of the offense, inmates would have the option to enroll in the new program. If a prisoner successfully completes the program, they would become eligible to apply for early parole, however, the governor has control over the final approval.
Arkansas enacted legislation in 2017 eliminating life without parole for juveniles and stated that the following parole provisions of the statute apply retroactively to offenses committed before, on, or after the effective date of the act:
- Juveniles convicted of capital murder are subject to a sentence of life with eligibility for parole after 30 years
- Juveniles convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life are eligible for parole no later than after 25 years
- Juveniles convicted of a crime in which the death of another person did not occur are eligible for parole no later than after 20 years (unless by law the juvenile is eligible for parole earlier)
California also passed legislation in 2017 to retroactively eliminate JLWOP. Their statute states a person sentenced to life without parole for an offense committed before eighteen is eligible for parole at a youth offender parole hearing during their 25th year of incarceration. North Dakota passed similar legislation in 2017, however, theirs allows defendants convicted as adults for offenses occurring before the defendant was eighteen to petition for a sentence reduction after serving 20 years.
Last year, Oregon passed SB1008 which eliminated JLWOP, but the parole provisions of the statute apply prospectively to offenses committed on or after January 2020. The bill states that juveniles will be eligible for parole after 15 years for offenses committed under age 18.
Conclusion
First and foremost, I am thankful to know that through Supreme Court cases and legislation, many JLWOP sentences have been overturned. I find it is so important to look at the circumstances of the crimes youth commit, and understand any reasoning behind them. Allowing juveniles to have the full facts of their cases considered before sentencing is the right thing to do. There has been a lot of research out there showing that JLWOP individuals have the lowest recidivism rate (1.14%) of any other inmate population. This makes sense when we look at a common thread argued in the Supreme Court cases, the youth have a great capacity for reform.
This brings me to my next point. In light of the pandemic raging around the world and especially throughout the United States, many people (governors, parole boards, and prosecutors) are releasing prisoners serving short sentences for low-level crimes, those who are very close to their release date, or the elderly to help mitigate the risk of COVID within the prison and jail systems. The rationale behind these releases are is that these individuals are less likely to re-offend or have demonstrated they deserve to be released in the future. To find out more about how this looks in one state, check out an interesting post we did earlier this year about Inmate Public Health Emergency Credits in New Jersey.
When looking at this conversation nationally, you will be hard pressed to find JLWOP individuals mentioned, despite their incredibly low recidivism rate. In general, it will be difficult for you to find people who even know JWLOP sentences exist, much less advocating for their release with COVID considerations. This is one of those topics I began writing about knowing next to nothing, and ended being sad, but hopeful with how far we have come. We know that some of the main factors that influence crime at a young age have to do with outside pressure and influence, and people deserve to grow from mistakes and bad decisions made in their youth and have a second chance at life. There are many, many stories about JLWOP prisoners who have made it their life’s mission to rehabilitate themselves and others. I believe they should be included in this conversation.
Cover Photo by Karsten Winegeart on Unsplash
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.