Posts
Challenge seeks to hold Maryland to constitutional requirement of (A second chance) for rehabilitated juvenile lifers
April 6, 2016
BALTIMORE — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland filed suit in federal district court in Baltimore contending that Maryland’s current sentencing and parole schemes unconstitutionally condemn youth to spend the rest of their lives in prison without any meaningful chance at parole and without adequate consideration of their youth.
More than 200 individuals are serving parole-eligible life sentences for offenses committed as youth in Maryland, yet no “juvenile lifer” has been paroled in the last 20 years under Maryland’s current scheme. The suit argues that in Maryland parole exists in name only, denying juveniles who have clearly demonstrated their rehabilitation any meaningful opportunity for release, as required by the Eighth Amendment.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative, a prisoners’ rights organization that includes juvenile lifers and their families among its members, as well as three individuals subjected to mandatory life sentences for offenses committed decades ago when they were teens. Although the plaintiffs are serving “life with parole” sentences, the suit argues that in practice Maryland never paroles lifers, instead operating a system of executive clemency in which commutation of life sentences is extraordinarily rare. In this way, Maryland converts “life with parole” sentences into de facto “life without parole” sentences that constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
In the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court, joined by other state and federal courts around the country, has repeatedly ruled that the Eighth Amendment forbids condemning kids to the most serious penalties as if they were not minors. Building on common sense, social science, and a growing body of neuroscience relating to adolescent brain development, the Court has noted that youth are more likely to make rash decisions due to their lack of maturity, are especially vulnerable to external forces, and are, by definition, still developing. As such, the Court has ruled, young offenders cannot be judged solely on the basis of their actions as adolescents. They are capable of dramatic reform and rehabilitation as they mature – so long as they are not denied hope of a second chance.
As a result of these differences, young people have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform than their adult counterparts, and the attributes of youth must be considered when subjecting youth to the harshest punishments. The Eighth Amendment bars life sentences for all juveniles other than the (rarest) juvenile offender “whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,” the Supreme Court has said. Under these rulings, youth cannot be condemned to life in prison without a real second chance—a “meaningful” and “realistic” opportunity for release upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
In sum, government decisions about sentencing and parole must take into account the offender’s status as a child at the time of offense.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that Maryland has not adhered to this constitutional rule in either sentencing or parole decisions by mandating life sentences without consideration of youth for certain offenses and by denying youth any real opportunity for release on parole even when they have plainly demonstrated their rehabilitation.
Most of the 200 Marylanders serving life sentences were sentenced under a mandatory scheme that doesn't require judges to consider their youth. Many have now served 30 or 40 years or more and have made admirable progress to demonstrate their maturity and rehabilitation.
Yet, no “juvenile lifer” has been paroled in the last two decades. This is so in part because Maryland is one of only three states in the country that requires the Governor to personally approve parole for any lifer, a rule that has politicized parole, entrenched barriers to release, and deprived deserving individuals of meaningful consideration for release.
“For decades, Maryland has denied any hope of release to juvenile lifers who have matured, who have done everything within their power to reform and to demonstrate their rehabilitation, and who the Constitution says deserve a second chance at life outside prison walls,” said Sonia Kumar of the ACLU of Maryland. “This second chance ~ this hope of redemption that the decisions of the Supreme Court promise young people ~ is all our clients ask. ”
One of the plaintiffs in the case, Nathaniel Foster, was given a mandatory life sentence in 1983 at the age of 17, for his involvement in a failed robbery attempt despite having no prior criminal record. At the time he had graduated from high school and was preparing to enroll in college. At sentencing, the judge in his case said he had no latitude to impose any other sentence. Mr. Foster is now 50 years old. He has never had a violent infraction during his entire, three-plus decades of incarceration, has earned stellar reviews as an employee from his supervisors, and has served as a mentor and volunteer providing hospice services to ailing prisoners. Despite his longstanding and extraordinary track record, as a result of Maryland’s dysfunctional parole scheme, Mr. Foster has never been recommended for parole.
I helped raise Nathaniel and now I feel so powerless, because it seems like he’s never going to get out,” said Brenda Allen, Nathaniel Foster’s aunt, who is a former parole officer. “He has worked so hard. I wish people would look at the kinds of things he’s accomplished. I don't know what else Nathaniel can do to prove he’s ready to return to society. I'm sorry for what happened. But he was just a kid himself.”
We are not asking for anything more than the law and basic fairness require,” said Walter Lomax, Executive Director of MRJI and a former lifer himself. “The men and women of MRJI who were sentenced as juveniles are not who they were decades ago. They have progressed and matured and deserve meaningful consideration for parole, not a system in which no one is paroled regardless of his or her merit.”
The plaintiffs are represented by pro bono attorneys Barry Fleishman and Jamie Brown of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP and ACLU of Maryland Legal Director Deborah Jeon and Staff Attorney Sonia Kumar.
Go to the ACLU of Maryland web site to download the complaint and learn more: http://aclu-md.org/
media@aclu.org
125 Broad Street 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004.
(212) 549-2666
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-sues-ensure-consideration-youth-status-sentencing-and-parole
------------------------------------------
Posted: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:07 pm
Associated Press |
BALTIMORE (AP) — Sentencing juveniles to life in prison in Maryland is unconstitutional because they don't have a meaningful chance at parole, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday.
Young offenders don't get the second chance to which they're constitutionally entitled because no juveniles sentenced to life have been granted early release in the past 20 years, according to the lawsuit filed against Republican Gov. Larry Hogan and several officials in his administration in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.
The suit was filed on behalf of three defendants and the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative. Hogan spokesman Matthew Clark said Wednesday that the administration is reviewing the filing.
There are about 200 inmates serving life sentences in Maryland prisons with the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were younger than 18. Maryland is one of only three states that require the governor to approve parole for prisoner serving life.
Johnston said a system that leaves final discretion to the governor is flawed, pointing to then-Gov. Parris Glendening's announcement outside a prison in 1995 that he'd refuse on principle to grant parole for prisoners convicted of murder or rape. He said that gives prosecutors an advantage because arguing for life in prison without parole is more difficult.
If you get a life sentence, you're going to die in prison unless the governor lets you out, and not a single person has been released since the early 1990s, Johnston said.
Showing posts with label Kids Doing Life In Prison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kids Doing Life In Prison. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
‘Toe Tag Parole' Some Juveniles Will Never Get Out!
Subject: [CaliforniaPrisonNews] ThinkProgress: Interviews the Award winning film makers of :Toe Tag Parole
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/29/3685194/toe-tag-parole/
--
‘Toe Tag Parole': What It’s Like To Live In Jail When You Know You Are Never Getting Out“It’s not better than
the death sentence because it is the death sentence,” said Kenneth Hartman, a maximum-security inmate
serving life without parole. “The outcome of the death penalty is death — it’s never being free again.”
So begins Toe Tag Parole: To Live And Die On Yard A, a new HBO documentary about 600 men who are
sentenced to life without parole and participate in an innovative rehabilitation program created by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2000. The film dives into the sentencing of
children to life without parole, who have to confront the ‘other death penalty.’ It follows Wilber Morales, who
received three life sentences plus five years at age 16 for a murder conviction and currently lives in a single cell
while he adjusts to prison culture. Viewers also meet Daniel Whitlow, who was locked up when he was 17 for a
murder conviction.
Although a 2012 Supreme Court ruling says that juveniles can no longer receive mandatory minimum
sentences with no chance of parole, the ruling was not retroactive. So thousands of inmates who were
sentenced as juveniles are still serving life sentences. As of early 2012, there were 301 juvenile “lifers” in California.
Edgar Gomez is one such lifer who was convicted at age 14. One day, while he was hanging out with a group of
friends, a member of the group shot and killed someone with a gang affiliation. Gomez did not pull the trigger, but because he was present during the killing, he was convicted of second degree murder. He was 22-years-old
when the documentary was filmed.
“You can’t help but to think about the decisions that you made in the past and this is what it’s costing you
now. Every day that I’m in my cell I have to live with that — what I could have done. What if that wouldn’t
have happened?” Gomez explains in the film. “You can let that destroy you and let all those thoughts
accumulate in yourself and just go wild like many of the prisoners have done….Why should you just give up on
a 14-year-old because he committed a horrifying crime?”
But the documentary also explores the unique facility where 600 lifers strive to turn their lives around. In the Progressive Programming Facility, also known as Yard A or the Honor Yard, inmates (including those sentenced as juveniles) are completely committed to “breaking the code of violence dominating prison life.” And as a
result, they have unique access to rehabilitative resources, such as anger management, art and music therapy, and peer group discussions. Prospective residents must have a clean behavior record and adhere to strict
requirements: random drug testing, racial integration, participation in a rehabilitative activity, and no gang
involvement.
ThinkProgress talked to Toe Tag Parole filmmakers Alan and Susan Raymonds about making their third prison
film for HBO and fifth criminal justice documentary.
How was this specific prison chosen?
Susan: When we read there a was huge increase in life sentences (1 in 9 prisoners), we started to research the subject. We discovered this yard at the CDCR and that California has the highest number of inmates serving
life (1 in 5). They had to do something with this huge population and so they devised this yard in 2000. We
thought for our purposes it was going to give us great access to men doing life. We shoot in video verite style, so we wanted to have access to as many lifers as possible, in a setting that was going to allow us to walk around and shoot. Alan: It gets into the whole philosophical human rights scenario. If you’re going to
condemn people to die in prison — life without the possibility of parole, the so-called other death penalty —
maybe you should think about how you should treat them and create yards where they can have a better life
than just warehousing them. The sentence is so extreme that we thought this yard would be an interesting
lens into America’s policy of extreme sentencing.
How were the inmates chosen?
Alan: The warden recommended (Hartman and) a couple others, but it was things we just happened upon.
Susan: We were interested in the juveniles who were sentenced to life without. Morales had just arrived so
that was a major coincidence. Alan: The whole juvenile life without parole is another subset of the story and
would make a good interview subject because Morales was just taking it all in. He had that great line about
the nightmare that doesn’t end. Edgar Gomez was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Edgar Gomez’s story also struck a chord with me.
Susan: That’s the nature of felony crimes. I don’t think the public understands the severity of the sentencing.
Alan: At 14 he’s clearly unable to stop what was going on. I think the whole thing of giving sentences, which
essentially means you’re going to spend your life in prison, to such young people is really a horrific miscarriage
of justice. All studies suggest that young men under the age of 18 are not able to always make the best
decision in difficult circumstances. Their brains aren’t fully formed. As they mature up to around age 25, when they become fully aware of things as their brain develops, they’re different people.
In general, how did the inmates perceive you?
Alan: Usually people think [inmates are] the ones that would create the problems when you film. But because
it’s such a closed out society, I think when they see filmmakers like us there — and also see that we’re not just there for an afternoon — I think they actually like it. They think that there’s some hope that we’ll bring some
news to the outside world of their plight. On this particular filming, we had no problems with the inmates. We had people lined up around the block wanting to be in the film.
How did you build their trust?
Susan: We had the ability to win over some guarded people. We were very happy to get into the veterans’
support group, and that took a couple of days for all the men to agree to let us film. That takes time, but you ask politely and they think about it. Alan: We do cinema verite documentaries — observational films. You
hope they let you film them in a natural, spontaneous way. Susan: That’s the value of showing up multiples
times.
Did you hear common themes or concerns, particularly among those sentenced as juveniles?
Susan: Well their complaints are about harsh sentences. One of the overriding themes that we found was they
believe life without is very cruel and at least should be known as the other death penalty. Alan: I think the
younger inmates on this yard are not subject to bullying or sexual advances that are common in other prison yards. I think they mainly were terminally depressed. California leads the nation in the inmate suicide rate.
When you get the life without parole sentence, (it can) make or break you — to get up every day and know
that nothing you do will ever make any difference on your getting out. We should also say the prison does not make it easy to visit.
In the documentary, viewers don’t hear the questions that inmates are answering. Why’d you go with that
approach?
Alan: Normally when we do interviews, the idea is to get people to talk and eliminate ourselves. We’re not
there as correspondents or personalities. We try to be as low key as possible. In the editing process, we try to take our questions out Susan: We want it to seem like it’s flowing like a conversation so that you are
experiencing it. We think it makes it a more personal film if you get to be up close and personal with this
person instead of filtered through us.
Did you encounter any challenges while filming?
Susan: Access to the prison was difficult but we persisted. Alan: California had shut down all filming in their prisons several years before we approached them. What they do is do it on a case-by-case basis. We were successful in convincing them to let us in because we were doing a good representation, and also we’re
Academy Award-winning filmmakers. Once we got in, it wasn’t easy because we had to work with a press
person from the CDCR and she had never worked on a documentary film. The prison is located in the Mojave
Desert so many days we were filming we had 100 degree temperatures. It was a hard location to film in.
My final question for you is: why did you choose to make a documentary on criminal justice?
Susan: You’re shining a light on a forgotten, secret world that America doesn’t know about. If we are going to have any reform of the criminal justice system, we have to shed some light on these places.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. You can watch Toe Tag Parole on August 3 on HBO.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/29/3685194/toe-tag-parole/
--
‘Toe Tag Parole': What It’s Like To Live In Jail When You Know You Are Never Getting Out“It’s not better than
the death sentence because it is the death sentence,” said Kenneth Hartman, a maximum-security inmate
serving life without parole. “The outcome of the death penalty is death — it’s never being free again.”
So begins Toe Tag Parole: To Live And Die On Yard A, a new HBO documentary about 600 men who are
sentenced to life without parole and participate in an innovative rehabilitation program created by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2000. The film dives into the sentencing of
children to life without parole, who have to confront the ‘other death penalty.’ It follows Wilber Morales, who
received three life sentences plus five years at age 16 for a murder conviction and currently lives in a single cell
while he adjusts to prison culture. Viewers also meet Daniel Whitlow, who was locked up when he was 17 for a
murder conviction.
Although a 2012 Supreme Court ruling says that juveniles can no longer receive mandatory minimum
sentences with no chance of parole, the ruling was not retroactive. So thousands of inmates who were
sentenced as juveniles are still serving life sentences. As of early 2012, there were 301 juvenile “lifers” in California.
Edgar Gomez is one such lifer who was convicted at age 14. One day, while he was hanging out with a group of
friends, a member of the group shot and killed someone with a gang affiliation. Gomez did not pull the trigger, but because he was present during the killing, he was convicted of second degree murder. He was 22-years-old
when the documentary was filmed.
“You can’t help but to think about the decisions that you made in the past and this is what it’s costing you
now. Every day that I’m in my cell I have to live with that — what I could have done. What if that wouldn’t
have happened?” Gomez explains in the film. “You can let that destroy you and let all those thoughts
accumulate in yourself and just go wild like many of the prisoners have done….Why should you just give up on
a 14-year-old because he committed a horrifying crime?”
But the documentary also explores the unique facility where 600 lifers strive to turn their lives around. In the Progressive Programming Facility, also known as Yard A or the Honor Yard, inmates (including those sentenced as juveniles) are completely committed to “breaking the code of violence dominating prison life.” And as a
result, they have unique access to rehabilitative resources, such as anger management, art and music therapy, and peer group discussions. Prospective residents must have a clean behavior record and adhere to strict
requirements: random drug testing, racial integration, participation in a rehabilitative activity, and no gang
involvement.
ThinkProgress talked to Toe Tag Parole filmmakers Alan and Susan Raymonds about making their third prison
film for HBO and fifth criminal justice documentary.
How was this specific prison chosen?
Susan: When we read there a was huge increase in life sentences (1 in 9 prisoners), we started to research the subject. We discovered this yard at the CDCR and that California has the highest number of inmates serving
life (1 in 5). They had to do something with this huge population and so they devised this yard in 2000. We
thought for our purposes it was going to give us great access to men doing life. We shoot in video verite style, so we wanted to have access to as many lifers as possible, in a setting that was going to allow us to walk around and shoot. Alan: It gets into the whole philosophical human rights scenario. If you’re going to
condemn people to die in prison — life without the possibility of parole, the so-called other death penalty —
maybe you should think about how you should treat them and create yards where they can have a better life
than just warehousing them. The sentence is so extreme that we thought this yard would be an interesting
lens into America’s policy of extreme sentencing.
How were the inmates chosen?
Alan: The warden recommended (Hartman and) a couple others, but it was things we just happened upon.
Susan: We were interested in the juveniles who were sentenced to life without. Morales had just arrived so
that was a major coincidence. Alan: The whole juvenile life without parole is another subset of the story and
would make a good interview subject because Morales was just taking it all in. He had that great line about
the nightmare that doesn’t end. Edgar Gomez was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Edgar Gomez’s story also struck a chord with me.
Susan: That’s the nature of felony crimes. I don’t think the public understands the severity of the sentencing.
Alan: At 14 he’s clearly unable to stop what was going on. I think the whole thing of giving sentences, which
essentially means you’re going to spend your life in prison, to such young people is really a horrific miscarriage
of justice. All studies suggest that young men under the age of 18 are not able to always make the best
decision in difficult circumstances. Their brains aren’t fully formed. As they mature up to around age 25, when they become fully aware of things as their brain develops, they’re different people.
In general, how did the inmates perceive you?
Alan: Usually people think [inmates are] the ones that would create the problems when you film. But because
it’s such a closed out society, I think when they see filmmakers like us there — and also see that we’re not just there for an afternoon — I think they actually like it. They think that there’s some hope that we’ll bring some
news to the outside world of their plight. On this particular filming, we had no problems with the inmates. We had people lined up around the block wanting to be in the film.
How did you build their trust?
Susan: We had the ability to win over some guarded people. We were very happy to get into the veterans’
support group, and that took a couple of days for all the men to agree to let us film. That takes time, but you ask politely and they think about it. Alan: We do cinema verite documentaries — observational films. You
hope they let you film them in a natural, spontaneous way. Susan: That’s the value of showing up multiples
times.
Did you hear common themes or concerns, particularly among those sentenced as juveniles?
Susan: Well their complaints are about harsh sentences. One of the overriding themes that we found was they
believe life without is very cruel and at least should be known as the other death penalty. Alan: I think the
younger inmates on this yard are not subject to bullying or sexual advances that are common in other prison yards. I think they mainly were terminally depressed. California leads the nation in the inmate suicide rate.
When you get the life without parole sentence, (it can) make or break you — to get up every day and know
that nothing you do will ever make any difference on your getting out. We should also say the prison does not make it easy to visit.
In the documentary, viewers don’t hear the questions that inmates are answering. Why’d you go with that
approach?
Alan: Normally when we do interviews, the idea is to get people to talk and eliminate ourselves. We’re not
there as correspondents or personalities. We try to be as low key as possible. In the editing process, we try to take our questions out Susan: We want it to seem like it’s flowing like a conversation so that you are
experiencing it. We think it makes it a more personal film if you get to be up close and personal with this
person instead of filtered through us.
Did you encounter any challenges while filming?
Susan: Access to the prison was difficult but we persisted. Alan: California had shut down all filming in their prisons several years before we approached them. What they do is do it on a case-by-case basis. We were successful in convincing them to let us in because we were doing a good representation, and also we’re
Academy Award-winning filmmakers. Once we got in, it wasn’t easy because we had to work with a press
person from the CDCR and she had never worked on a documentary film. The prison is located in the Mojave
Desert so many days we were filming we had 100 degree temperatures. It was a hard location to film in.
My final question for you is: why did you choose to make a documentary on criminal justice?
Susan: You’re shining a light on a forgotten, secret world that America doesn’t know about. If we are going to have any reform of the criminal justice system, we have to shed some light on these places.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. You can watch Toe Tag Parole on August 3 on HBO.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Dear Fair Sentencing for Youth Supporters
Dear Fair Sentencing for Youth Supporters:
I'm writing to ask for your help in urging Governor Brown to sign AB 1276. Please take a few minutes to write, call, or email the Governor.
Young adults are especially vulnerable in prison to rape, assault, and the persuasions of prison gangs. Under current law, young people entering prison are usually housed on the most dangerous units, with the fewest programs and education. AB 1276 would change this.
This legislation recognizes both the vulnerability and potential of young adults entering prison. If passed into law AB 1276 would require prisons to more carefully consider where people under the age of 22 should be housed, and make it possible for young adults to be placed on units that are safer and provide more access to programming.
Your help is needed. The California legislature just passed AB 1276 and it now sits on the Governor's desk, awaiting his signature to become law. We cannot take the governor's support for granted. He needs to know that Californians believe this is important.
If he does sign it, young people entering prison will be treated differently. Do you have 10 minutes to help? Please urge Governor Brown to sign this bill into law. Here are easy-to-use sample letters, or you can email or call. Learn more about the bill here: AB 1276. Read Human Rights Watch's letter of support here.
Thank you, Elizabeth
Senior Advocate, Children's Rights Division
Human Rights Watch
11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064
O: 310.477.5540
ANNOUNCEMENTSHouse meetings?!
Tell us what you think in THE SURVE .We're thinking about holding some CARES family and friends house meetings, getting together to share, learn, & act. Should we have one in your area? Tell us what you think in this short survey.
Youth Offender / SB 260 Parole Guide
For families and people on the inside. Click here to get yours. The compete guide in Spanish is now available!
SB 260 Guía de información para los internos, sus familia, y amigos
Audiencia de libertad condicional para juveniles. Aqui en español
Next CARES Call-in Meeting
Mark your calendars! Every first and third Tuesday of the month you can join CARES to hear informative and dynamic speakers on issues important to you. Our next meeting will be September 16, 2014, 8pm.
Compassion acrosstraditional divides Imagine a setting where the family of murder victims and the family of youth sentenced to adult prison terms sit and listen to each other with compassion and care. That is what our group "Healing Dialogue and Action" does. Think you might be interested? Learn more here: Healing Dialogue
Consider joining us on twitter
and get occasional text messages
about these important issues.
Go to: www.twitter.com/fairsentencing
Don't have regular access to a computer? No problem. You can sign up on any cell phone (it doesn't have to be a "smart" phone!) and get a text message from us. Just send a text from your cell phone to 40404 with
this message: follow fairsentencing
It's free, although normal text charges will apply.
Keep up at our website: www.fairsentencingforyouth.org
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Advocates block youth mandatory minimums
Advocates block youth mandatory minimums
Controversial "Audrie's Law" amended to pass committee
Under pressure from CJCJ and other youth advocates, California State Senator Jim Beall has amended SB 838 (also known as "Audrie's Law") to remove the provision that would have set a new precedent for mandatory minimums in the state's juvenile justice system.
After the bill passed unanimously through the state Senate on May 28, advocates worked to educate state assembly members and citizens on the dangers of mandatory minimum sentences. At the June 17 hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, committee members heard expert testimony against SB 838 from Patti Lee, San Francisco's Deputy Public Defender and a CJCJ board member. More than a dozen organizations — including CJCJ, Human Rights Watch, and the Youth Law Center — also lined up to voice their opposition to the bill.
A week after the hearing, Sen. Beall removed the mandatory minimum provision and the committee passed the amended bill unanimously.
Thank you to all who contacted your representatives and helped protect our juvenile justice system from these punitive and ineffective policies!
Controversial "Audrie's Law" amended to pass committee
Under pressure from CJCJ and other youth advocates, California State Senator Jim Beall has amended SB 838 (also known as "Audrie's Law") to remove the provision that would have set a new precedent for mandatory minimums in the state's juvenile justice system.
After the bill passed unanimously through the state Senate on May 28, advocates worked to educate state assembly members and citizens on the dangers of mandatory minimum sentences. At the June 17 hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, committee members heard expert testimony against SB 838 from Patti Lee, San Francisco's Deputy Public Defender and a CJCJ board member. More than a dozen organizations — including CJCJ, Human Rights Watch, and the Youth Law Center — also lined up to voice their opposition to the bill.
A week after the hearing, Sen. Beall removed the mandatory minimum provision and the committee passed the amended bill unanimously.
Thank you to all who contacted your representatives and helped protect our juvenile justice system from these punitive and ineffective policies!
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
40 Boardman Place San Francisco,
CA 94103 Phone: (415) 621-5661
40 Boardman Place San Francisco,
CA 94103 Phone: (415) 621-5661
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Teen Gets 118 Years
By Louis Hansen
The Virginian-Pilot
In one of his final acts in office, Gov. Bob McDonnell commuted to 40 years the sentence of Travion Blount, the Norfolk man convicted as a teen of armed robbery and originally sentenced to more than six life terms in prison.The partial pardon leaves Blount, now 23, with a chance for freedom, although his sentence is more than three times the length of his older co-defendants.Janet V. Kelly, secretary of the commonwealth under McDonnell, said the governor considered Blount's criminal history and conduct in prison. McDonnell believed a reduction to 40 years was a "just punishment," she said.Blount was 15 when he and two men robbed a house party. No shots were fired, and Blount injured no one. The men, both 18, pleaded guilty and received 10- and 13-year sentences. Blount went to trial and was sentenced to six life terms plus 118 years. It may be the longest sentence for a teen convicted of a crime not involving homicide.John Coggeshall, Blount's lawyer, said he was pleased and disappointed at the decision. "I'm pleased that, from now on, every waking moment of his life, Travion Blount knows he won't die in prison," he said. But family and advocates reacted to the news with shock, sadness and anger."Forty years. Wow. I mean, why?" his mother, Angela Blount, said.If Blount serves the minimum sentence, he will be about 50 when he is released. His parents would be in their 70s.Blount's legal team will continue to work through the courts and legislature to further reduce his sentence, Coggeshall said.Blount could also benefit from a bill introduced in the General Assembly, Coggeshall said. The proposal, authored by state Sen. David Marsden, D-Fairfax, would allow a panel of judges to review sentences of juvenile offenders facing life for nonhomicide crimes after they have served at least 20 years. Blount is one of 22 Virginia inmates given life without parole for crimes not involving homicide.In September 2006, Blount and the two young men targeted an alleged drug dealer's home in Norfolk. The three arrived to find a house party with a dozen young people, some drinking and smoking marijuana. Blount and his friends pulled guns, stole small amounts of cash and weed, and drove away.They were quickly caught. Prosecutors offered Blount a minimum of an 18-year sentence if he agreed to plead guilty to some charges. His lawyer advised him to take the agreement. Blount refused, saying he did not commit every crime for which he was accused.Norfolk prosecutors charged him with four felonies for each victim. A jury convicted him of 49 felonies. His case was profiled in The Virginian-Pilot in November.An administration official said the story was immediately given to the governor. McDonnell and his staff were considering clemency before a formal petition was filed in late December. A review of Blount's record showed he had pleaded guilty to other robberies and later violated prison rules.Joe Dillard, president of the Norfolk chapter of the NAACP, said the organization wants Blount to receive a sentence similar to the co-defendants. Forty years is too long, he said. "We're not going to stop here."Supporters of Blount are planning a rally for him on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Norfolk.
Louis Hansen, 757-446-2341, louis.hansen@pilotonline.com
The Virginian-Pilot
In one of his final acts in office, Gov. Bob McDonnell commuted to 40 years the sentence of Travion Blount, the Norfolk man convicted as a teen of armed robbery and originally sentenced to more than six life terms in prison.The partial pardon leaves Blount, now 23, with a chance for freedom, although his sentence is more than three times the length of his older co-defendants.Janet V. Kelly, secretary of the commonwealth under McDonnell, said the governor considered Blount's criminal history and conduct in prison. McDonnell believed a reduction to 40 years was a "just punishment," she said.Blount was 15 when he and two men robbed a house party. No shots were fired, and Blount injured no one. The men, both 18, pleaded guilty and received 10- and 13-year sentences. Blount went to trial and was sentenced to six life terms plus 118 years. It may be the longest sentence for a teen convicted of a crime not involving homicide.John Coggeshall, Blount's lawyer, said he was pleased and disappointed at the decision. "I'm pleased that, from now on, every waking moment of his life, Travion Blount knows he won't die in prison," he said. But family and advocates reacted to the news with shock, sadness and anger."Forty years. Wow. I mean, why?" his mother, Angela Blount, said.If Blount serves the minimum sentence, he will be about 50 when he is released. His parents would be in their 70s.Blount's legal team will continue to work through the courts and legislature to further reduce his sentence, Coggeshall said.Blount could also benefit from a bill introduced in the General Assembly, Coggeshall said. The proposal, authored by state Sen. David Marsden, D-Fairfax, would allow a panel of judges to review sentences of juvenile offenders facing life for nonhomicide crimes after they have served at least 20 years. Blount is one of 22 Virginia inmates given life without parole for crimes not involving homicide.In September 2006, Blount and the two young men targeted an alleged drug dealer's home in Norfolk. The three arrived to find a house party with a dozen young people, some drinking and smoking marijuana. Blount and his friends pulled guns, stole small amounts of cash and weed, and drove away.They were quickly caught. Prosecutors offered Blount a minimum of an 18-year sentence if he agreed to plead guilty to some charges. His lawyer advised him to take the agreement. Blount refused, saying he did not commit every crime for which he was accused.Norfolk prosecutors charged him with four felonies for each victim. A jury convicted him of 49 felonies. His case was profiled in The Virginian-Pilot in November.An administration official said the story was immediately given to the governor. McDonnell and his staff were considering clemency before a formal petition was filed in late December. A review of Blount's record showed he had pleaded guilty to other robberies and later violated prison rules.Joe Dillard, president of the Norfolk chapter of the NAACP, said the organization wants Blount to receive a sentence similar to the co-defendants. Forty years is too long, he said. "We're not going to stop here."Supporters of Blount are planning a rally for him on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Norfolk.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Letters From Juveniles Serving Life In Prison
The Tragic Lives Of So Many Young People Facing Life In Prison
http://en.radiovaticana.va/m_articolo.asp?c=677778
Letters from prison - Radio Vaticana
(Vatican Radio) Los Angeles County has one of the highest youth incarceration rates in the country. Up to 90% of the county’s juvenile justice youth are Latino or African American, and up to 70% of incarcerated youth nationally are said to have some kind of disability.
After witnessing the tragic lives of so many young people facing life without parole in a juvenile justice system where little rehabilitation takes place and with frighteningly high recidivism rates that continue into adulthood, Jesuit Father Mike Kennedy decided to set up the Jesuit Restorative Justice Initiative (JRJI) to provide support and hope to juveniles with life sentences.
Through the Spiritual Exercise of St. Ignatius of Loyola, a series of meditative prayers helping people find God in their everyday experiences, the Jesuit Restorative Justice Initiative provides tools that allow prisoners to find healing and forgiveness and to recognize their lives have meaning and purpose.
When the young boys at the juvenile detention facility in LA heard of Pope Francis’ wish to celebrate the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper at Rome’s Casal del Marmo prison with the young inmates there, many of them expressed their desire to participate from afar and in close solidarity to what the Pope was going to do in another juvenile hall.
To do this they have written letters to Pope Francis, thanking him for his gesture of love and service, praying for him – as he has asked all of us to do, describing the sadness of their lives in detention, and asking for prayers to help them endure the darkness and hopelessness of their situations… As father Kennedy points out, some of these youngsters will spend the rest of their lives in prison.
We welcome their voices and publish the letters that will be read at a service Thursday evening with the Director of Novices and 11 Jesuit novices, each one washing the feet of an inmate at the juvenile hall where kids are sentenced as adults.
Dear Pope Francis,
Thank you for washing the feet of youth like us in Italy.
We also are young and made mistakes.
Society has given up on us, thank you
that you have not given up on us.
Dear Pope Francis,
I think you are a humble man.
When you read this letter you will have washed the feet of other kids like.
I am writing this letter because you give me hope.
I know one day with people like you us kids
won't be given sentences that will keep us in prison
for the rest of our lives.
I pray for you. Dont forget us.
Dear Pope Francis,
I don't know if you have ever been to where I live.
I have grown up in a jungle of gangs and drugs and violence.
I have seen people killed. I have been hurt.
We have been victims of violence.
It is hard to be young and surrounded by darkness.
Pray for me that one day I will be free
and be able to help other youth like you do.
Dear Pope Francis,
Tonight we pray for all victims of violence.
The families of people we have hurt need healing.
Our families need healing.
We are all in pain.
Let us feel Jesus' healing tonight.
Dear Pope Francis,
I know the same youth feet that you wash
are like me.
Drugs have been part of me life for so long.
We all struggle to be sober.
But you inspire me and I promise to be sober
and help others with the cruel addiction of crystal meth.
Dear Pope Francis,
My many friends are in two different maximum security
prisons in one of our states 33 state prisons.Calif. I am writing to tell you that I feel bad
that more youth of color are in prison in our state
than any other place in the world. I am inviting you to come
here next year to wash our feet, many of who have been sentences to die in prison.
God bless you.
Dear Pope Francis,
I read that the harshest sentence that a youth
can receive in Italy is 20 years. I wish this was true here.
I hope I hear back from you. I have been catholic and glad I am catholic
because I have a pope like you.
I will pray for you every day because we need examples of God like you are
in this violent world.
Dear Pope Francis,
I am glad you picked the name Francis. When I was little I read about St.Francis. He is a cool saint. He was a man of peace and simplicity. I am praying to you that you pray that we have peace in our gang filled neighborhoods.
Dear Pope Francis,
When Jesus washed the feet of his friends he gave an example of humility. I have been raised to believe that it is only with respect in hurting your enemy that you are a man. Tonight you and Jesus show me something in this washing of the feet something very different. I hope we kids learn from this.
Dear Pope Francis,
I have never been to Rome. I do not know if it is near Los Angeles
because all my youth I have only known my neighborhood. I hope one
day I will be given a second chance and receive a blessing from you
and maybe even have my feet washed on Holy Thursday.
Dear Pope Francis,
I know you have a good family. I am writing this letter to you because I know
that my family is suffering because of me. I know have done some bad things but I am not a bad kid and when last year in our big state we not a new law called SB9 this made me family happy because this is a beautiful message that we kids deserve a second chance.
Dear Pope Francis,
From reading I know that us kids are capable of making decisions like older people do. I have seen pictures of brains of kids and adults. I am asking you as Pope to help us and
help other people understand we can change and want to change.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
No Resentencing for Michigan Juvenile Lifers
November 16, 2012
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/11/michigan-appeals-court-decides-miller-is-not-retroactive-to-final-juve-murder-cases.htmlMichigan
appeals court decides *Miller* is *not* retroactive to final juve murder
cases As reported in this local
article,
which is headlined "Appeals Court: No resentencing for Michigan juvenile
lifers, but state law is 'unconstitutional'," an intermediate appellate
court has now issued a lengthy ruling on *Miller*'s import and impact in
the state up north. Here are the basics from the press report:
The Michigan Court of Appeals today denied a resentencing request for
Raymond Carp, 21, who is serving a mandatory term of life in prison without
the possibility of parole for a first-degree murder conviction when he was
16....
The ruling invalidated strict sentencing laws in Michigan and other states
that treat violent offenders as adults, giving hope to hundreds of inmates
serving life terms without hope of parole for crimes they committed as
kids.
But the three-judge appeals court panel that heard arguments in the Carp
case said today that the Supreme Court decision does not apply
retroactively to offenders who already have exhausted the direct appeals
process. The high court decision "is procedural and not substantive in
nature and does not compromise a watershed ruling," they wrote in a 41-page
published opinion.
Michigan is home to more than 350 juvenile lifers, one of the highest
totals in the nation, and today's ruling may be appealed to the state
Supreme Court.
The appeals court made a point to instruct judges in pending cases that
Michigan's current law denying parole is "unconstitutional" when applied to
juveniles and urged legislators to revise state statutes to comply with the
Supreme Court ruling.
The full opinion in *Michigan v. Carp*, No. 307758 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 15,
2012), is available at this
link;
it runs 41-pages with nearly 200 footnotes. Here are the unanimous
opinion's final paragraphs:
The United States Supreme Court has, through a series of recent decisions
culminating in *Miller*, indicated that juveniles are subject to different
treatment than adults for purposes of sentencing under the Eighth
Amendment. Specifically, we hold that in Michigan a sentencing court must
consider, at the time of sentencing, characteristics associated with youth
as identified in *Miller* when determining whether to sentence a juvenile
convicted of a homicide offense to life in prison with or without the
eligibility for parole. While *Miller* does not serve to “foreclose a
sentencer’s ability to make that judgment in homicide cases, we require it
to take into account how children are different, and how those differences
counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”
While *Miller* is applicable to those cases currently pending or on direct
review, we find that in accordance with *Teague* and Michigan law that it
(1) is not to be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, such
as Carp’s, because the decision is procedural and not substantive in nature
and (2) does not comprise a watershed ruling. We urge our Legislature to
address with all possible expediency the issues encompassed by and
resulting from *Miller* and that necessitate the revision of our current
statutory sentencing scheme for juveniles.
In the interim, as guidance for our trial courts for those cases currently
in process or on remand following direct appellate review, we find that MCL
791.234(6)(a) is unconstitutional as currently written and applied to
juvenile homicide offenders. When sentencing a juvenile, defined now as an
individual below 18 years of age, for a homicide offense, the sentencing
court must, at the time of sentencing, evaluate and review those
characteristics of youth and the circumstances of the offense as delineated
in Miller and this opinion in determining whether following the imposition
of a life sentence the juvenile is to be deemed eligible or not eligible
for parole. We further hold that the Parole Board must respect the
sentencing court’s decision by also providing a meaningful determination
and review when parole eligibility arises.
Friday, November 16, 2012
WIsconsin Upholds Life Without Parole for 14 Year Old
WI Upholds Life Without Parole for 14 Year Old By Jeralyn, Section Juvenile Offenders Omer Ninham was 14 when he was part of a group of kids that killed a 13 year old by throwing him off the top of a parking garage. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Wisconsin Supreme Court today upheld the sentence. The opinion is here. The defense argued: Ninham mounts a categorical constitutional challenge, arguing that sentencing a 14-year-old to life imprisonment without parole is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Wisconsin Constitution. In the alternative, Ninham seeks sentence modification on the grounds that (1) his sentence is unduly harsh and excessive; (2) new scientific research regarding adolescent brain development constitutes a new factor that frustrates the purpose of the sentence; and (3) the circuit court relied on an improper factor when imposing the sentence. --------------------------- Michigan Judge Sentences 15 Year Old to Life Without Parole By Jeralyn, Section Juvenile Offenders Posted on Tue Oct 26, 2010 14 year old Dakota Eliason shot and killed his grandfather. He said he went back and forth for hours debating whether to kill him or commit suicide, and decided to on the former. The DA charged him in adult court. Monday, a Michigan judge imposed a sentence of life without parole, finding it violated neither the Constitution nor international treaties. He rejected a sentence of life with parole saying the law didn't authorize it. His opinion is here. His lawyer disagrees: “Anyone that's spent any time around that kid will tell you he's a loving kid, certainly at his point, people that don't know him are defining him by the one terrible thing he did but he does have remorse he does wish he could take it back,” said defense attorney Lanny Fisher.
Friday, August 10, 2012
The Push to Keep Teen Felons Locked Up for Life
The Push to Keep Teen Felons Locked Up for Life
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and others aim to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling that gives juvenile lifers another chance.
By Suevon Lee, ProPublica| Mon Aug. 6, 2012 11:45 AM PDT
When Dennis Epps learned in June that the Supreme Court had struck down mandatory life without parole sentences for kids convicted of murder, he was hopeful. His brother, David, was given such a sentence for home burglary-murder committed at 16 and has spent most of his 48 years behind bars.
"I was thinking he was going to get some kind of release, because he served 32 years on a life sentence," Epps told ProPublica.
But Epps's brother is unlikely going anywhere soon. A few weeks after the ruling, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad announced he would commute the life without parole sentences of 38 juvenile offenders, and make them eligible for parole after 60 years. David Epps would be in his mid-70s when he could first be released.
Under the Supreme Court's ruling, minors can still get life without parole sentences—just not automatically after a conviction; instead a judge will need to decide, taking into account the minor's youth.
For the roughly 2,500 juvenile offendersalready sentenced to life in prison without parole, the upshot of the ruling—Miller v. Alabama—seemed clear: "They will all get another bite at the sentencing apple," Dan Filler, a professor at Drexel University's Earle Mack School of Law, wrote shortly after the ruling.
That may not happen if Iowa's governor or many other states get their way.
"Justice is a balance and these commutations ensure that justice is balanced with punishment for those vicious crimes and taking into account public safety," Branstad said in announcinghis order.
The governor's action, which sidesteps any potential resentencing hearings, has sparked criticism and legal challenges.
Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta who teaches at Yale Law School, called the governor's order "questionable legally and bad public policy."
"The main point of the Miller decision—and the main concern of any sentencing—should be individualized sentencing based on factors about each human being," he said. "Obviously, nothing about any of the 38 individuals was taken into account, just as it was not when they were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole."
Yet Filler, the Drexel law professor who wrote about the ruling, said it actually leaves the details to states to iron out. "When you look at the decision closely, it implicitly leaves room for exactly what the governor of Iowa did," he told ProPublica. "It doesn't give us any guidance. You have to see this decision as entirely cloudy. Different states are going to try different things."
Indeed, some states have suggested they don't plan on rolling back minors' life without parole sentences, pointing out the Supreme Court left unclear whether its ruling should be applied retroactively to minors already sentenced. (Twenty-six states currently have mandatory life without parole statutes for juveniles. Here's a list and a map showing where.)
"It is the (Alabama) attorney general's position that this rule does not apply retroactively," Alabama Solicitor General John C. Neiman Jr. told us. "Ultimately whether it will apply retroactively is going to be a question that will be litigated in, and decided by, the courts."
The ruling
In its June 25 decision, a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court ordered an individualized approach to sentencing for juveniles convicted of murder to consider proportionality of punishment to the nature of the crime and offender's history.
Sentencers are now required to "follow a certain process—considering an offender's youth and attendant circumstances—before imposing a particular penalty," wrote Justice Elena Kagan for the majority. Among the unique characteristics of youth cited were "immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences."
While the opinion didn't impose a categorical ban on life without parole sentences for juveniles, it requires that authorities "take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison."
The decision follows in the steps of a recent line of Supreme Court cases stating that kids, by virtue of their youth and lack of fully matured brains, are different from adults and have greater capacity for rehabilitation. In 2005, the Court struck down the death penalty for those under 18. In 2010, it forbade life without parole for juveniles convicted of crimes that aren't murder.
The patchy aftermath of the 2010 decision illustrates the challenges states have faced in implementing changes to their laws. Florida—which dispensed the lion's share of life without parole sentences to minors for nonhomicides—is still grappling with how to address the ruling. Greater discretion in judges' hands has also led, in some cases, to 70- to 90-year sentences for minors—while not technically life, a comparable term of years.
What's next?
In the wake of Miller, some states around the country have already taken legislative action. North Carolina recently passed an amendment granting juvenile lifers parole review after 25 years. It also requires judges to consider such factors as age, immaturity, intellectual capacity, mental health history, and the influence of familial or peer pressure when imposing punishment.
In Michigan, which boasts the second-highest number of juvenile lifers, criminal defense attorneys have begun mobilizing legal assistance for current inmates despite disagreement as to whether or not the court's decision is retroactive.
In Pennsylvania, the state with the most number of juvenile offenders serving life without parole (444), the state Senate Judiciary Committee recently solicited testimony from various stakeholders to decide how to proceed. The issue of retroactivity there, too, remainsuncertain.
Iowa's recent executive order is not the first time a governor preemptively took action following a Supreme Court ruling: In 2005, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas commuted the death sentences of 28 juvenile offenders, changing them to life sentences with the possibility of parole after 40 years. Around the same time, he had also signed a mandatory life without parole statute for juveniles; Texas abolished the statute in 2009.
If the Iowa governor's order stands, 38 juvenile offenders—including David Epps—will not be eligible for parole until they reach their mid-70s, about the normal life expectancy of Americans. But of course prison can prematurely age people. The National Institute of Corrections designates an elderly or aging prisoner as age 50 and older.
Recidivism rates also decline the older a prisoner gets: In Iowa, statistics show these ratesdrop markedly once an inmate reaches age 45 and even more dramatically by the time he's 55.
In light of the governor's action in Iowa, any hope Dennis Epps had of ever seeing his brother get out of prison was short-lived. The governor "might as well have left them serving a life sentence, because that's pretty much what that is," he said.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/supreme-court-miller-alabama-minors-life-without-parole?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motherjones%2Fmain+%28MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed%29
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and others aim to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling that gives juvenile lifers another chance.
By Suevon Lee, ProPublica| Mon Aug. 6, 2012 11:45 AM PDT
When Dennis Epps learned in June that the Supreme Court had struck down mandatory life without parole sentences for kids convicted of murder, he was hopeful. His brother, David, was given such a sentence for home burglary-murder committed at 16 and has spent most of his 48 years behind bars.
"I was thinking he was going to get some kind of release, because he served 32 years on a life sentence," Epps told ProPublica.
But Epps's brother is unlikely going anywhere soon. A few weeks after the ruling, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad announced he would commute the life without parole sentences of 38 juvenile offenders, and make them eligible for parole after 60 years. David Epps would be in his mid-70s when he could first be released.
Under the Supreme Court's ruling, minors can still get life without parole sentences—just not automatically after a conviction; instead a judge will need to decide, taking into account the minor's youth.
For the roughly 2,500 juvenile offendersalready sentenced to life in prison without parole, the upshot of the ruling—Miller v. Alabama—seemed clear: "They will all get another bite at the sentencing apple," Dan Filler, a professor at Drexel University's Earle Mack School of Law, wrote shortly after the ruling.
That may not happen if Iowa's governor or many other states get their way.
"Justice is a balance and these commutations ensure that justice is balanced with punishment for those vicious crimes and taking into account public safety," Branstad said in announcinghis order.
The governor's action, which sidesteps any potential resentencing hearings, has sparked criticism and legal challenges.
Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta who teaches at Yale Law School, called the governor's order "questionable legally and bad public policy."
"The main point of the Miller decision—and the main concern of any sentencing—should be individualized sentencing based on factors about each human being," he said. "Obviously, nothing about any of the 38 individuals was taken into account, just as it was not when they were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole."
Yet Filler, the Drexel law professor who wrote about the ruling, said it actually leaves the details to states to iron out. "When you look at the decision closely, it implicitly leaves room for exactly what the governor of Iowa did," he told ProPublica. "It doesn't give us any guidance. You have to see this decision as entirely cloudy. Different states are going to try different things."
Indeed, some states have suggested they don't plan on rolling back minors' life without parole sentences, pointing out the Supreme Court left unclear whether its ruling should be applied retroactively to minors already sentenced. (Twenty-six states currently have mandatory life without parole statutes for juveniles. Here's a list and a map showing where.)
"It is the (Alabama) attorney general's position that this rule does not apply retroactively," Alabama Solicitor General John C. Neiman Jr. told us. "Ultimately whether it will apply retroactively is going to be a question that will be litigated in, and decided by, the courts."
The ruling
In its June 25 decision, a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court ordered an individualized approach to sentencing for juveniles convicted of murder to consider proportionality of punishment to the nature of the crime and offender's history.
Sentencers are now required to "follow a certain process—considering an offender's youth and attendant circumstances—before imposing a particular penalty," wrote Justice Elena Kagan for the majority. Among the unique characteristics of youth cited were "immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences."
While the opinion didn't impose a categorical ban on life without parole sentences for juveniles, it requires that authorities "take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison."
The decision follows in the steps of a recent line of Supreme Court cases stating that kids, by virtue of their youth and lack of fully matured brains, are different from adults and have greater capacity for rehabilitation. In 2005, the Court struck down the death penalty for those under 18. In 2010, it forbade life without parole for juveniles convicted of crimes that aren't murder.
The patchy aftermath of the 2010 decision illustrates the challenges states have faced in implementing changes to their laws. Florida—which dispensed the lion's share of life without parole sentences to minors for nonhomicides—is still grappling with how to address the ruling. Greater discretion in judges' hands has also led, in some cases, to 70- to 90-year sentences for minors—while not technically life, a comparable term of years.
What's next?
In the wake of Miller, some states around the country have already taken legislative action. North Carolina recently passed an amendment granting juvenile lifers parole review after 25 years. It also requires judges to consider such factors as age, immaturity, intellectual capacity, mental health history, and the influence of familial or peer pressure when imposing punishment.
In Michigan, which boasts the second-highest number of juvenile lifers, criminal defense attorneys have begun mobilizing legal assistance for current inmates despite disagreement as to whether or not the court's decision is retroactive.
In Pennsylvania, the state with the most number of juvenile offenders serving life without parole (444), the state Senate Judiciary Committee recently solicited testimony from various stakeholders to decide how to proceed. The issue of retroactivity there, too, remainsuncertain.
Iowa's recent executive order is not the first time a governor preemptively took action following a Supreme Court ruling: In 2005, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas commuted the death sentences of 28 juvenile offenders, changing them to life sentences with the possibility of parole after 40 years. Around the same time, he had also signed a mandatory life without parole statute for juveniles; Texas abolished the statute in 2009.
If the Iowa governor's order stands, 38 juvenile offenders—including David Epps—will not be eligible for parole until they reach their mid-70s, about the normal life expectancy of Americans. But of course prison can prematurely age people. The National Institute of Corrections designates an elderly or aging prisoner as age 50 and older.
Recidivism rates also decline the older a prisoner gets: In Iowa, statistics show these ratesdrop markedly once an inmate reaches age 45 and even more dramatically by the time he's 55.
In light of the governor's action in Iowa, any hope Dennis Epps had of ever seeing his brother get out of prison was short-lived. The governor "might as well have left them serving a life sentence, because that's pretty much what that is," he said.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/supreme-court-miller-alabama-minors-life-without-parole?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motherjones%2Fmain+%28MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed%29
Monday, July 9, 2012
Court ruling on juveniles could affect 12 from Erie, Crawford
Court ruling on juveniles could affect 12 from Erie, Crawford
Updated: July 9, 2012 5:14 PM EST
Court ruling on juveniles could affect 12 from Erie, Crawford
By ED PALATTELLA, Erie Times-News
ed.palattella@timesnews.com
http://www.goerie.com/article/2012307079910
Earlier versions of this story included an incorrect date for a hearing in Harrisburg on the issue of inmates serving sentences for murders they committed as juveniles. The hearing will be Thursday.
Life might no longer mean life for 12 state inmates from Erie and Crawford counties.
The 12 are serving mandatory life sentences with no parole for murders they committed when they were younger than 18.
Parole has become a possibility for each of them after the U.S. Supreme Court in June banned mandatory life sentences, without parole, for juvenile offenders.
Local officials expect the Supreme Court ruling to be retroactive, but they are waiting for direction on how to follow the 5-4 decision, issued June 25.
The Pennsylvania General Assembly is preparing to act. On Thursday, the state Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing in Harrisburg on the Supreme Court decision, which held that mandatory life sentences, without parole, for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and inhuman punishment.
The decision does not affect inmates who received those sentences for murders they committed as adults.
What the state Legislature does will help determine the process by which the affected inmates would seek relief, by petitioning a judge, for example, or by filing an appeal with the state Board of Probation and Parole.
More than 2,000 inmates who committed murder as juveniles are serving life sentences with no parole nationwide, including 373 in Pennsylvania, according to the state Department of Corrections and the Juvenile Law Center, of Philadelphia. Nine of those 373 inmates are from Erie County, and three are from Crawford County.
"It is kind of up in the air," said Erie County's chief public defender, Pat Kennedy, a former assistant district attorney. "Is there going to have to be a resentencing?"
Kennedy, who handled cases in Juvenile Court as a prosecutor, said she is tracking the developments to determine when her office may have to get involved in the inmates seeking relief.
Erie County President Judge Ernest J. DiSantis Jr., who is also monitoring the possible changes, said the state Parole Board might have a role. He said the board, rather than county judges, has control over whether to grant parole for inmates serving state sentences, including inmates sentenced to life.
"If they file something with us," DiSantis said of the inmates sentenced as juveniles, "I don't know whether we would have jurisdiction."
The Parole Board is studying the Supreme Court decision but has no comment at this time, a spokesman for the board said.
The Supreme Court ruling, made in the case of Miller v. Alabama, does not prohibit a juvenile convicted of murder from serving a life sentence without parole.
The justices ruled that such sentences cannot be mandatory, as they had been in Pennsylvania and other states for juveniles tried as adults and convicted of first-degree murder, or a premeditated homicide; or second-degree murder, or a killing committed during a felony, such as a robbery.
The Supreme Court found that a life sentence without parole can be an option, but not a requirement, for a juvenile, Erie County District Attorney Jack Daneri said.
Under the ruling, he said, a sentencing judge, for example, must have the discretion to impose a life sentence with or without parole, based on the facts of each case.
Life sentences without parole for juveniles "are no longer automatic," Daneri said. "It is kind of a limited ruling."
He said the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association will ask the Legislature to draft a law to create a sentencing structure to reflect the Supreme Court ruling.
Daneri said he was disappointed with the ruling. He said the juveniles affected by it were sentenced not for typical crimes, but for the most serious of offenses.
"The ones who got life without parole were convicted of first- or second-degree murder," Daneri said.
ED PALATTELLA can be reached at 870-1813 or by e-mail. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/ETNpalattella.
Updated: July 9, 2012 5:14 PM EST
Court ruling on juveniles could affect 12 from Erie, Crawford
By ED PALATTELLA, Erie Times-News
ed.palattella@timesnews.com
http://www.goerie.com/article/2012307079910
Earlier versions of this story included an incorrect date for a hearing in Harrisburg on the issue of inmates serving sentences for murders they committed as juveniles. The hearing will be Thursday.
Life might no longer mean life for 12 state inmates from Erie and Crawford counties.
The 12 are serving mandatory life sentences with no parole for murders they committed when they were younger than 18.
Parole has become a possibility for each of them after the U.S. Supreme Court in June banned mandatory life sentences, without parole, for juvenile offenders.
Local officials expect the Supreme Court ruling to be retroactive, but they are waiting for direction on how to follow the 5-4 decision, issued June 25.
The Pennsylvania General Assembly is preparing to act. On Thursday, the state Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing in Harrisburg on the Supreme Court decision, which held that mandatory life sentences, without parole, for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and inhuman punishment.
The decision does not affect inmates who received those sentences for murders they committed as adults.
What the state Legislature does will help determine the process by which the affected inmates would seek relief, by petitioning a judge, for example, or by filing an appeal with the state Board of Probation and Parole.
More than 2,000 inmates who committed murder as juveniles are serving life sentences with no parole nationwide, including 373 in Pennsylvania, according to the state Department of Corrections and the Juvenile Law Center, of Philadelphia. Nine of those 373 inmates are from Erie County, and three are from Crawford County.
"It is kind of up in the air," said Erie County's chief public defender, Pat Kennedy, a former assistant district attorney. "Is there going to have to be a resentencing?"
Kennedy, who handled cases in Juvenile Court as a prosecutor, said she is tracking the developments to determine when her office may have to get involved in the inmates seeking relief.
Erie County President Judge Ernest J. DiSantis Jr., who is also monitoring the possible changes, said the state Parole Board might have a role. He said the board, rather than county judges, has control over whether to grant parole for inmates serving state sentences, including inmates sentenced to life.
"If they file something with us," DiSantis said of the inmates sentenced as juveniles, "I don't know whether we would have jurisdiction."
The Parole Board is studying the Supreme Court decision but has no comment at this time, a spokesman for the board said.
The Supreme Court ruling, made in the case of Miller v. Alabama, does not prohibit a juvenile convicted of murder from serving a life sentence without parole.
The justices ruled that such sentences cannot be mandatory, as they had been in Pennsylvania and other states for juveniles tried as adults and convicted of first-degree murder, or a premeditated homicide; or second-degree murder, or a killing committed during a felony, such as a robbery.
The Supreme Court found that a life sentence without parole can be an option, but not a requirement, for a juvenile, Erie County District Attorney Jack Daneri said.
Under the ruling, he said, a sentencing judge, for example, must have the discretion to impose a life sentence with or without parole, based on the facts of each case.
Life sentences without parole for juveniles "are no longer automatic," Daneri said. "It is kind of a limited ruling."
He said the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association will ask the Legislature to draft a law to create a sentencing structure to reflect the Supreme Court ruling.
Daneri said he was disappointed with the ruling. He said the juveniles affected by it were sentenced not for typical crimes, but for the most serious of offenses.
"The ones who got life without parole were convicted of first- or second-degree murder," Daneri said.
ED PALATTELLA can be reached at 870-1813 or by e-mail. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/ETNpalattella.
Friday, May 11, 2012
acquitted-but-still-serving-life-without-parole-since-he-was-16
http://www.change.org/petitions/acquitted-but-still-serving-life-without-parole-since-he-was-16-3
My husbands name is Curtis Shuler Jr and he is currently serving a term of natural life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was a sixteen year old juvenile when he was arrested in 1998. He was charged with Premeditated First Degree Murder on a victim that a 'sworn' jury 'ACQUITTED Him'. The jury never found him guilty of killing the victim. In fact the jury acquitted himof every 'essential element' to constitute the crime. Yet instead of following state and federal laws when it comes to legally inconsistent verdicts the prosecutor persuaded the judge to find jim guilty as charged and the court adjudicated him guilty as charge despite the judges confusion as to the verdict. Federal and state law requires that verdicts rendered like his 'REQUIRE ACQUITTAL”. He has a life sentence without benefit of parole for a murder he was never convicted of doing. He was wrongfully convicted and railroaded by the state.
Iin 1998, there were a totat of 7 teens who were convicted of murder and prosecuted by the same states attorney, John Aguero. He gave the white teenagers, less then life in which two are already free and the other two will be coming home soon. The three black teens were given life without parole. Why did he feel compassion for the white teen's and not the black teen's?
What I am asking is for immediate release of my husband.
Why People Are Signing
Donna Cohen
about 1 year ago
I have had the pleasure of meeting this man and his wonderful wife.
This man is no criminal and has served almost 14 years behind bars for
something he was ACQUITTED of, he was never found guilty. Where is the
JUSTICE here??? This man should be released IMMEDIATELY after all 14 years
behind bars for something he was never found guilty of?? When is enough
ENOUGH? One angry mother and friend.
My husbands name is Curtis Shuler Jr and he is currently serving a term of natural life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was a sixteen year old juvenile when he was arrested in 1998. He was charged with Premeditated First Degree Murder on a victim that a 'sworn' jury 'ACQUITTED Him'. The jury never found him guilty of killing the victim. In fact the jury acquitted himof every 'essential element' to constitute the crime. Yet instead of following state and federal laws when it comes to legally inconsistent verdicts the prosecutor persuaded the judge to find jim guilty as charged and the court adjudicated him guilty as charge despite the judges confusion as to the verdict. Federal and state law requires that verdicts rendered like his 'REQUIRE ACQUITTAL”. He has a life sentence without benefit of parole for a murder he was never convicted of doing. He was wrongfully convicted and railroaded by the state.
Iin 1998, there were a totat of 7 teens who were convicted of murder and prosecuted by the same states attorney, John Aguero. He gave the white teenagers, less then life in which two are already free and the other two will be coming home soon. The three black teens were given life without parole. Why did he feel compassion for the white teen's and not the black teen's?
What I am asking is for immediate release of my husband.
Why People Are Signing
Donna Cohen
about 1 year ago
I have had the pleasure of meeting this man and his wonderful wife.
This man is no criminal and has served almost 14 years behind bars for
something he was ACQUITTED of, he was never found guilty. Where is the
JUSTICE here??? This man should be released IMMEDIATELY after all 14 years
behind bars for something he was never found guilty of?? When is enough
ENOUGH? One angry mother and friend.
Monday, April 16, 2012
2003 Story } California Teen Gets Life In Prison
California Teenager Given Life Sentence
Published: Sunday, June 15, 2003
A teenager who was 14 when he kidnapped a businessman and shot at the police has been sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. He is one of the youngest defendants in California history to receive the penalty.
The youth, Antonio Nuñez, now 16, was sentenced on Friday by Judge William Froeberg of Orange County Superior Court, who rejected arguments that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment.
In addition to life without parole, Mr. Nuñez received four life terms and 121 years. He had been found guilty of attempted murder of a police officer, assault, evading, street terrorism and committing crimes for the benefit of a street gang.
A defense lawyer, Joel Garson, had asked the judge to consider the ''mental maturity'' of Mr. Nuñez, whose reading and math skills were said to be at a second-grade level. He also said Mr. Nuñez had a ''very minor'' past criminal history and a traumatic family life.
Mr. Nuñez was arrested on April 25, 2001, and charged with kidnapping a Santa Ana businessman, Delfino Moreno, and shooting at officers with an AK-47 during a chase. No one was injured.
Juan Diego Perez, 29, Mr. Nuñez's accomplice, was convicted of the same counts and was also sentenced to life without parole in an earlier trial.
A version of this article appeared in print on Sunday, June 15, 2003, on section 1 page 21
Published: Sunday, June 15, 2003
A teenager who was 14 when he kidnapped a businessman and shot at the police has been sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. He is one of the youngest defendants in California history to receive the penalty.
The youth, Antonio Nuñez, now 16, was sentenced on Friday by Judge William Froeberg of Orange County Superior Court, who rejected arguments that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment.
In addition to life without parole, Mr. Nuñez received four life terms and 121 years. He had been found guilty of attempted murder of a police officer, assault, evading, street terrorism and committing crimes for the benefit of a street gang.
A defense lawyer, Joel Garson, had asked the judge to consider the ''mental maturity'' of Mr. Nuñez, whose reading and math skills were said to be at a second-grade level. He also said Mr. Nuñez had a ''very minor'' past criminal history and a traumatic family life.
Mr. Nuñez was arrested on April 25, 2001, and charged with kidnapping a Santa Ana businessman, Delfino Moreno, and shooting at officers with an AK-47 during a chase. No one was injured.
Juan Diego Perez, 29, Mr. Nuñez's accomplice, was convicted of the same counts and was also sentenced to life without parole in an earlier trial.
A version of this article appeared in print on Sunday, June 15, 2003, on section 1 page 21
Friday, March 16, 2012
FINAL VOTE ON SB 399
What happened to Senate Bill 399?
Senate Bill 399 Bill
The California Fair Sentences for Youth Act was introduced by Senator Yee, and co-authored by Senator Romero, Senate Speaker Steinberg, Assembly Members Fuentes and Hill, and Assembly Speaker J. Pérez. Senate Bill 399 would have permitted youth who had been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to petition for a resentencing hearing. It passed in the Senate, and passed each committee in the State Assembly, but failed in its final vote on August 30, 2010. 39 voted yes for SB399, although when it became clear it would not reach the needed 41 votes to pass, six Assembly Members changed their votes and abstained.
The bill recognized that all young people, even those serving life sentences, have the capacity to change for the better and should have access to the rehabilitative tools to do so. This Act would have provided an opportunity for review and resentencing after 15 years or more of incarceration for youth sentenced to life without parole in prison. Recognizing that teenagers are still maturing, this Act created specific criteria and an intense, three-part review process that would result in the possibility of a lesser sentence for those offenders who have matured and proven themselves to have changed.
FINAL VOTE ON SB 399
STATE ASSEMBLY ON 8-30-10
VOTED YES
Ammiano Bass Beall Blumenfield
Bradford Brownley Coto Davis
De La Torre De Leon Eng Evans
Feuer Fong Fuentes Furutani
Gatto Hall Hayashi Hernandez
Hill Huffman Jones B. Lowenthal
Monning Ruskin Saldana Skinner
Swanson Torlakson Torrico Yamada
J. Perez
ABSTAINED OR DID NOT VOTE
(Bolded name indicates the Member first voted yes, but then abstained when the bill failed to get the 41 votes needed to pass.)
C. Calderon Carter Chesbro Galgiani
Mendoza M. Pérez Salas
VOTED NO
Adams Anderson Arambula B. Berryhill
T. Berryhill Block Buchanan Caballero
Conway Cook DeVore Fletcher
Fuller Gaines Garrick Gilmore
Hagman Harkey Huber Jeffries
Knight Lieu Logue Ma
Miller Nava Nestande Niello
Nielsen Norby Portantino Silva
Smyth Solorio A. Strickland Torres
Tran Villines
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
In California, there are approximately four people sentenced to juvenile life without parole for non-homicide cases. The total number of juvenile life without parole cases in California is approximately 273.
Subject: Youth Deserve a Second Chance: We need to pass Senate Bill 9!
Hi,
Right now, juveniles in California can be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. It is a sentence to die in prison. The U.S. is the only country in the world that applies this punishment to youth under the age of 18.
Several hundred teens have been sentenced to life without parole in California. Under the current law, not one of them will ever have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have turned their lives around and can safely re-enter society.
If Senate Bill 9 is enacted, California will set up a strict process for a judge to examine these individuals’ lives when they are older and determine if they are rehabilitated and remorseful. If so, they will then have a chance to earn parole after serving a minimum of 25 years.
We ask our legislators to pass this important bill during the upcoming vote.
That's why I signed a petition to The California State House, which says:
"As a concerned Californian, I urge you to give youth the possibility of a second chance. Please pass Senate Bill 9."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://signon.org/sign/youth-deserve-a-second?source=s.em.cp&r_by=2473364
Thanks!
Senate Bill 399 Bill
The California Fair Sentences for Youth Act was introduced by Senator Yee, and co-authored by Senator Romero, Senate Speaker Steinberg, Assembly Members Fuentes and Hill, and Assembly Speaker J. Pérez. Senate Bill 399 would have permitted youth who had been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to petition for a resentencing hearing. It passed in the Senate, and passed each committee in the State Assembly, but failed in its final vote on August 30, 2010. 39 voted yes for SB399, although when it became clear it would not reach the needed 41 votes to pass, six Assembly Members changed their votes and abstained.
The bill recognized that all young people, even those serving life sentences, have the capacity to change for the better and should have access to the rehabilitative tools to do so. This Act would have provided an opportunity for review and resentencing after 15 years or more of incarceration for youth sentenced to life without parole in prison. Recognizing that teenagers are still maturing, this Act created specific criteria and an intense, three-part review process that would result in the possibility of a lesser sentence for those offenders who have matured and proven themselves to have changed.
FINAL VOTE ON SB 399
STATE ASSEMBLY ON 8-30-10
VOTED YES
Ammiano Bass Beall Blumenfield
Bradford Brownley Coto Davis
De La Torre De Leon Eng Evans
Feuer Fong Fuentes Furutani
Gatto Hall Hayashi Hernandez
Hill Huffman Jones B. Lowenthal
Monning Ruskin Saldana Skinner
Swanson Torlakson Torrico Yamada
J. Perez
ABSTAINED OR DID NOT VOTE
(Bolded name indicates the Member first voted yes, but then abstained when the bill failed to get the 41 votes needed to pass.)
C. Calderon Carter Chesbro Galgiani
Mendoza M. Pérez Salas
VOTED NO
Adams Anderson Arambula B. Berryhill
T. Berryhill Block Buchanan Caballero
Conway Cook DeVore Fletcher
Fuller Gaines Garrick Gilmore
Hagman Harkey Huber Jeffries
Knight Lieu Logue Ma
Miller Nava Nestande Niello
Nielsen Norby Portantino Silva
Smyth Solorio A. Strickland Torres
Tran Villines
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
In California, there are approximately four people sentenced to juvenile life without parole for non-homicide cases. The total number of juvenile life without parole cases in California is approximately 273.
Subject: Youth Deserve a Second Chance: We need to pass Senate Bill 9!
Hi,
Right now, juveniles in California can be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. It is a sentence to die in prison. The U.S. is the only country in the world that applies this punishment to youth under the age of 18.
Several hundred teens have been sentenced to life without parole in California. Under the current law, not one of them will ever have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have turned their lives around and can safely re-enter society.
If Senate Bill 9 is enacted, California will set up a strict process for a judge to examine these individuals’ lives when they are older and determine if they are rehabilitated and remorseful. If so, they will then have a chance to earn parole after serving a minimum of 25 years.
We ask our legislators to pass this important bill during the upcoming vote.
That's why I signed a petition to The California State House, which says:
"As a concerned Californian, I urge you to give youth the possibility of a second chance. Please pass Senate Bill 9."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://signon.org/sign/youth-deserve-a-second?source=s.em.cp&r_by=2473364
Thanks!
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Two Maryland inmates worthy of mercy
Two Maryland inmates worthy of mercy
By Editorial Board, Published: March 14
MARK FARLEY GRANT was 14 years old in 1984 when he was charged with the shooting
death of another teenager during an attempted robbery in Maryland. He was tried
and convicted, and was sentenced to life behind bars. A key witness in the case
has since recanted his testimony and identified Mr. Grant’s co-defendant as the
shooter.
It is welcome news that Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is considering commuting Mr.
Grant’s sentence. He is also weighing early release for Tamara Settles, who was
involved in a planned robbery that turned fatal when her boyfriend shot and
killed the man. The boyfriend pleaded guilty and served nine years. Ms. Settles
has been imprisoned for nearly three decades.
Sentences of life without parole are often touted as an alternative to capital
punishment because they provide certainty to victims and communities; these
sentences should not be tinkered with lightly. But we commend Mr. O’Malley, who
has yet to grant a clemency request during his six years in office, for finding
the courage to revisit cases in which this open-ended sentence may conflict with
the ideal of fairness.
In Maryland, only the governor may commute the sentence of an inmate facing life
behind bars for murder. The Parole Commission, which has the authority to parole
inmates convicted of lesser crimes or facing lesser sentences, has forwarded to
Mr. O’Malley 61 cases in which it has recommended commutation for individuals
sentenced to life. Mr. O’Malley has rejected 57 of these. Two landed on the
governor’s desk in February and are in the early stages of evaluation.
In determining whether to grant clemency, Mr. O’Malley must, among other things,
take into account the views of law enforcement officials, the inmate’s role in
the crime, the inmate’s age at the time of the crime, the length of time served
and the likelihood that the inmate will transgress again.
Public safety must always be a priority. But Mr. Grant and Ms. Settles appear
worthy candidates for mercy. Mr. Grant, who approaches his third decade behind
bars, was a child at the time of his offense, and serious questions exist about
the extent of his culpability. The prosecutor who took his case to trial
supports clemency, and the current state’s attorney does not object.
Ms. Settles, now 53, has successfully completed an extended drug rehabilitation
program, earned an associate’s degree and is pursuing her bachelor’s degree,
according to The Post’s Aaron C. Davis.
Even if granted clemency, neither Ms. Settles nor Mr. Grant would be released
until the state has crafted a transition plan with programs to help them
reintegrate into society. Both would be subject to supervision.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-md-inmates-worthy-of-mercy/2012/03/12\
/gIQADEgXCS_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
By Editorial Board, Published: March 14
MARK FARLEY GRANT was 14 years old in 1984 when he was charged with the shooting
death of another teenager during an attempted robbery in Maryland. He was tried
and convicted, and was sentenced to life behind bars. A key witness in the case
has since recanted his testimony and identified Mr. Grant’s co-defendant as the
shooter.
It is welcome news that Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is considering commuting Mr.
Grant’s sentence. He is also weighing early release for Tamara Settles, who was
involved in a planned robbery that turned fatal when her boyfriend shot and
killed the man. The boyfriend pleaded guilty and served nine years. Ms. Settles
has been imprisoned for nearly three decades.
Sentences of life without parole are often touted as an alternative to capital
punishment because they provide certainty to victims and communities; these
sentences should not be tinkered with lightly. But we commend Mr. O’Malley, who
has yet to grant a clemency request during his six years in office, for finding
the courage to revisit cases in which this open-ended sentence may conflict with
the ideal of fairness.
In Maryland, only the governor may commute the sentence of an inmate facing life
behind bars for murder. The Parole Commission, which has the authority to parole
inmates convicted of lesser crimes or facing lesser sentences, has forwarded to
Mr. O’Malley 61 cases in which it has recommended commutation for individuals
sentenced to life. Mr. O’Malley has rejected 57 of these. Two landed on the
governor’s desk in February and are in the early stages of evaluation.
In determining whether to grant clemency, Mr. O’Malley must, among other things,
take into account the views of law enforcement officials, the inmate’s role in
the crime, the inmate’s age at the time of the crime, the length of time served
and the likelihood that the inmate will transgress again.
Public safety must always be a priority. But Mr. Grant and Ms. Settles appear
worthy candidates for mercy. Mr. Grant, who approaches his third decade behind
bars, was a child at the time of his offense, and serious questions exist about
the extent of his culpability. The prosecutor who took his case to trial
supports clemency, and the current state’s attorney does not object.
Ms. Settles, now 53, has successfully completed an extended drug rehabilitation
program, earned an associate’s degree and is pursuing her bachelor’s degree,
according to The Post’s Aaron C. Davis.
Even if granted clemency, neither Ms. Settles nor Mr. Grant would be released
until the state has crafted a transition plan with programs to help them
reintegrate into society. Both would be subject to supervision.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-md-inmates-worthy-of-mercy/2012/03/12\
/gIQADEgXCS_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Sentencing Project Joins Allies in Opposing JLWOP Sentences
January 31, 2012 (The Sentencing Project)
The Sentencing Project Joins Allies in Opposing JLWOP Sentences
The Sentencing Project joins other amici in voicing our support for eliminating life without parole sentences for young people. The U.S. stands alone worldwide in the imposition of juvenile life sentences with no option for parole. The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 20, 2012 in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.
----------------------------------------------
Children in the US as young as eleven years old have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever being paroled.
According to Amnesty International, the United States is the only country sentencing minors to mandatory life imprisonment sentences.
Ashley Nellis of the Sentencing Project says young people under 18 are being tried and sentenced as adults in homicide related crimes.
Amnesty International released a new report, "This is Where I'm Going to Be When I Die". The Human Rights organization says there is a legal and moral consensus that life imprisonment without the possibility of release should never be used against minors and is calling upon the US to stop.
More than 25 hundred adults are in US jails for committing crimes as juveniles. According to The Sentencing Project, about 75% are African American or Hispanic.
Nellis says sentences are handed down without considering factors such as history of abuse or mental health and the special potential for rehabilitation and change are ignored.
Last year, the US Supreme Court banned life sentences without parole for minors in non-murder cases. The Court has agreed to consider the issue in homicide cases as well. A decision is expected next year.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213418.html
The Sentencing Project Joins Allies in Opposing JLWOP Sentences
The Sentencing Project joins other amici in voicing our support for eliminating life without parole sentences for young people. The U.S. stands alone worldwide in the imposition of juvenile life sentences with no option for parole. The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 20, 2012 in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.
----------------------------------------------
Children in the US as young as eleven years old have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever being paroled.
According to Amnesty International, the United States is the only country sentencing minors to mandatory life imprisonment sentences.
Ashley Nellis of the Sentencing Project says young people under 18 are being tried and sentenced as adults in homicide related crimes.
Amnesty International released a new report, "This is Where I'm Going to Be When I Die". The Human Rights organization says there is a legal and moral consensus that life imprisonment without the possibility of release should never be used against minors and is calling upon the US to stop.
More than 25 hundred adults are in US jails for committing crimes as juveniles. According to The Sentencing Project, about 75% are African American or Hispanic.
Nellis says sentences are handed down without considering factors such as history of abuse or mental health and the special potential for rehabilitation and change are ignored.
Last year, the US Supreme Court banned life sentences without parole for minors in non-murder cases. The Court has agreed to consider the issue in homicide cases as well. A decision is expected next year.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213418.html
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Imagine being a teenager waking up in a prison for the rest of your life.
INDIANA COUNTY, Pa. -- Imagine being a teenager and knowing you'd be waking up in a prison for the rest of your life.
That's reality for two young convicted murderers from Lancaster County.
Alec Kreider and David Ludwig are serving life sentences.
They will likely spend a good portion of their time at the Pine Grove State Prison -- a facility designed specifically for young adult offenders.
Rigid Structure Means Early Days
At Pine Grove State Prison in Indiana County, the day begins early. The inmates get up at 6 a.m., and are served breakfast by 6:30 a.m.
Each day is virtually identical for the 300 young adult offenders who live in the prison.
David Ludwig, who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend's parents in Lancaster County, is one of them.
The young men follow a strict, military-like regiment.
According to prison officials, many of them have never had structure in their lives. So, when they first arrive at the prison they are put through a leadership development program, similar to a boot camp initiative.
The young men live in tiny cells. There's nothing on the walls and their personal belongings have to fit in a locker.
They are not allowed to have much.
The men are expected to earn their privileges, just like any other teenager.
Education Important In Pine Grove Prison
They will spend most of the morning doing school work. Eventually, they'll finish high school and can take some community college courses.
Most do job training.
The young men can be taught a wide range of skills -- from how to clean floors to working with heating and air conditioning equipment.
All around the prison, there are constant reminders that these are criminals.
In the classrooms, every tool needs to be in place and every person needs to be accounted for.
"We are first, and above all, a prison, which means we count them constantly to make sure everyone stays where they are. That we know where everyone is and that they are acting in a way we would expect a prisoner to act," said superintendent Joseph Mazurkiewicz.
Free time comes in the afternoon.
There are opportunities to exercise outside, play basketball in the gym or play games.
Some inmates choose to stay in their cell and watch the limited cable television that's offered.
The day ends by 9 p.m.
Rehabilitation Is The Ultimate Mission
It's the same every day, for every inmate. Whether they are at Pine Grove for a few years or for their entire lives.
David Ludwig is facing a life sentence.
"It's almost strange, but when they first get here and they have a life sentence, it's almost like it doesn't sink in to them yet. They haven't come to the realization that they very possibly will never leave an institution," said Don Bachota, the prison's program manager.
It usually hits them within the first few weeks.
"All of a sudden the light bulb goes off and they realize it. It's very hard and we have psychologists, psychiatrists and everybody constantly working with them," said Bachota.
Some continue to struggle at the thought of spending a lifetime in prison. Others try to help their other inmates.
That is the mission of the Pine Grove Prison and those who run it.
"If you can help one person, if there's one young adult offender that you can get to see the light, then that's one less person that can make a victim of someone out in the world," said Bachota. "And you never know if that one person you're protecting could be your own family or friend."
Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/17032997/detail.html#ixzz1iPMM7OEK
That's reality for two young convicted murderers from Lancaster County.
Alec Kreider and David Ludwig are serving life sentences.
They will likely spend a good portion of their time at the Pine Grove State Prison -- a facility designed specifically for young adult offenders.
Rigid Structure Means Early Days
At Pine Grove State Prison in Indiana County, the day begins early. The inmates get up at 6 a.m., and are served breakfast by 6:30 a.m.
Each day is virtually identical for the 300 young adult offenders who live in the prison.
David Ludwig, who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend's parents in Lancaster County, is one of them.
The young men follow a strict, military-like regiment.
According to prison officials, many of them have never had structure in their lives. So, when they first arrive at the prison they are put through a leadership development program, similar to a boot camp initiative.
The young men live in tiny cells. There's nothing on the walls and their personal belongings have to fit in a locker.
They are not allowed to have much.
The men are expected to earn their privileges, just like any other teenager.
Education Important In Pine Grove Prison
They will spend most of the morning doing school work. Eventually, they'll finish high school and can take some community college courses.
Most do job training.
The young men can be taught a wide range of skills -- from how to clean floors to working with heating and air conditioning equipment.
All around the prison, there are constant reminders that these are criminals.
In the classrooms, every tool needs to be in place and every person needs to be accounted for.
"We are first, and above all, a prison, which means we count them constantly to make sure everyone stays where they are. That we know where everyone is and that they are acting in a way we would expect a prisoner to act," said superintendent Joseph Mazurkiewicz.
Free time comes in the afternoon.
There are opportunities to exercise outside, play basketball in the gym or play games.
Some inmates choose to stay in their cell and watch the limited cable television that's offered.
The day ends by 9 p.m.
Rehabilitation Is The Ultimate Mission
It's the same every day, for every inmate. Whether they are at Pine Grove for a few years or for their entire lives.
David Ludwig is facing a life sentence.
"It's almost strange, but when they first get here and they have a life sentence, it's almost like it doesn't sink in to them yet. They haven't come to the realization that they very possibly will never leave an institution," said Don Bachota, the prison's program manager.
It usually hits them within the first few weeks.
"All of a sudden the light bulb goes off and they realize it. It's very hard and we have psychologists, psychiatrists and everybody constantly working with them," said Bachota.
Some continue to struggle at the thought of spending a lifetime in prison. Others try to help their other inmates.
That is the mission of the Pine Grove Prison and those who run it.
"If you can help one person, if there's one young adult offender that you can get to see the light, then that's one less person that can make a victim of someone out in the world," said Bachota. "And you never know if that one person you're protecting could be your own family or friend."
Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/17032997/detail.html#ixzz1iPMM7OEK
Monday, October 10, 2011
ATLANTA : Appeals court allows life sentences for juveniles
Appeals court allows life sentences for juveniles
ATLANTA -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday held that juveniles convicted of murder can be sentenced
to life in prison without parole, seeking to settle a lingering debate over how the courts punish minors
who commit serious offenses.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death and that the
y also can't be sentenced to life in prison without parole for rape and other non-homicide offenses
. The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, though, upheld life sentences for juveniles
convicted of murder.
The decision came in the case against Kenneth Loggins, who was convicted in Alabama of killing
a hitchhiker in 1994 and originally sentenced to die. He was 17 at the time of the killing, so his
punishment was reduced to life without parole because the Supreme Court banned such executions in 2005.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/07/2395169/appeals-court-allows-life-sentences.html
ATLANTA -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday held that juveniles convicted of murder can be sentenced
to life in prison without parole, seeking to settle a lingering debate over how the courts punish minors
who commit serious offenses.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death and that the
y also can't be sentenced to life in prison without parole for rape and other non-homicide offenses
. The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, though, upheld life sentences for juveniles
convicted of murder.
The decision came in the case against Kenneth Loggins, who was convicted in Alabama of killing
a hitchhiker in 1994 and originally sentenced to die. He was 17 at the time of the killing, so his
punishment was reduced to life without parole because the Supreme Court banned such executions in 2005.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/07/2395169/appeals-court-allows-life-sentences.html
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
sentence of 84 years to life for a juvenile is cruel and unusual
People v. Caballero , District: 2 DCA , Division: 4 , Case #: B217709
Opinion Date: 1/18/2011 , DAR #: 837
Case Holding:
A sentence of 110 years to life imposed on a juvenile does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant argued his sentence of 110 years to life for premeditated attempted murder with several enhancements was cruel and unusual punishment under Graham v. Florida (2010) __ U.S. __ [130 S.Ct. 2011] because it denies him any meaningful chance of release. The court declined to apply the principles in Graham because that case expressly limited its holding to juveniles sentenced to life without parole. "If the court had intended to broaden the class of offenders within the scope of its decision, it would have stated that the case concerns any juvenile offender who receives the functional equivalent of a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide offense." (Disagreeing with People v. Mendez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 47 [sentence of 84 years to life for a juvenile is cruel and unusual].)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Opinion Date: 1/18/2011 , DAR #: 837
Case Holding:
A sentence of 110 years to life imposed on a juvenile does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant argued his sentence of 110 years to life for premeditated attempted murder with several enhancements was cruel and unusual punishment under Graham v. Florida (2010) __ U.S. __ [130 S.Ct. 2011] because it denies him any meaningful chance of release. The court declined to apply the principles in Graham because that case expressly limited its holding to juveniles sentenced to life without parole. "If the court had intended to broaden the class of offenders within the scope of its decision, it would have stated that the case concerns any juvenile offender who receives the functional equivalent of a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide offense." (Disagreeing with People v. Mendez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 47 [sentence of 84 years to life for a juvenile is cruel and unusual].)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Saturday, April 30, 2011
2008 there were nearly 500 kids in PA serving life in prison
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08273/915905-85.stm
Acording To the gazette in 2008 there were nearly 500 kids in PA serving life in prison
for crimes committed as juveniles and some convicted by the felony murder rule.
Which is that even though they were not personally responcable for the murder
they were convicted also.
Acording To the gazette in 2008 there were nearly 500 kids in PA serving life in prison
for crimes committed as juveniles and some convicted by the felony murder rule.
Which is that even though they were not personally responcable for the murder
they were convicted also.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Life Without Parole
According to a New York Times survey, the number of lifers has almost doubled in the last decade, to 132,000. Historical data on juvenile offenders is incomplete. But among the 18 states that can provide data from 1993, the juvenile lifer population rose 74 percent in the next decade.
Prosecutors and representatives of crime victims applaud the trend. The prisoners, they say, are paying the minimum fit punishment for their terrible crimes.
But even supporters of the death penalty wonder about this state of affairs.
"Life without parole is a very strange sentence when you think about it," said Robert Blecker, a professor at New York Law School. "The punishment seems either too much or too little. If a sadistic or extraordinarily cold, callous killer deserves to die, then why not kill him? But if we are going to keep the killer alive when we could otherwise execute him, why strip him of all hope?"
Burl Cain, the warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, which houses thousands of lifers, said older prisoners who have served many years should be able to make their cases to a parole or pardon board that has an open mind. Because all life sentences in Louisiana are without the possibility of parole, only a governor's pardon can bring about a release.
The prospect of a meaningful hearing would, Mr. Cain said, provide lifers with a taste of hope.
"Prison should be a place for predators and not dying old men," Mr. Cain said. "Some people should die in prison, but everyone should get a hearing."
Television and Boredom
In interviews, lifers said they tried to resign themselves to spending down their days entirely behind bars. But the prison programs that once kept them busy in an effort at training and rehabilitation have largely been dismantled, replaced by television and boredom.
The lot of the lifer may be said to be cruel or pampered, depending on one's perspective. "It's a bleak imprisonment," said W. Scott Thornsley, a former corrections official in Pennsylvania. "When you take away someone's hope, you take away a lot."
It was not always that way, said Steven Benjamin, a 56-year-old Michigan lifer.
"The whole perception of incarceration changed in the 1970's," said Mr. Benjamin, who is serving a sentence of life without parole for participating in a robbery in 1973 in which an accomplice killed a man. "They're dismantling all meaningful programs. We just write people off without a second thought."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/national/05lifer.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
Prosecutors and representatives of crime victims applaud the trend. The prisoners, they say, are paying the minimum fit punishment for their terrible crimes.
But even supporters of the death penalty wonder about this state of affairs.
"Life without parole is a very strange sentence when you think about it," said Robert Blecker, a professor at New York Law School. "The punishment seems either too much or too little. If a sadistic or extraordinarily cold, callous killer deserves to die, then why not kill him? But if we are going to keep the killer alive when we could otherwise execute him, why strip him of all hope?"
Burl Cain, the warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, which houses thousands of lifers, said older prisoners who have served many years should be able to make their cases to a parole or pardon board that has an open mind. Because all life sentences in Louisiana are without the possibility of parole, only a governor's pardon can bring about a release.
The prospect of a meaningful hearing would, Mr. Cain said, provide lifers with a taste of hope.
"Prison should be a place for predators and not dying old men," Mr. Cain said. "Some people should die in prison, but everyone should get a hearing."
Television and Boredom
In interviews, lifers said they tried to resign themselves to spending down their days entirely behind bars. But the prison programs that once kept them busy in an effort at training and rehabilitation have largely been dismantled, replaced by television and boredom.
The lot of the lifer may be said to be cruel or pampered, depending on one's perspective. "It's a bleak imprisonment," said W. Scott Thornsley, a former corrections official in Pennsylvania. "When you take away someone's hope, you take away a lot."
It was not always that way, said Steven Benjamin, a 56-year-old Michigan lifer.
"The whole perception of incarceration changed in the 1970's," said Mr. Benjamin, who is serving a sentence of life without parole for participating in a robbery in 1973 in which an accomplice killed a man. "They're dismantling all meaningful programs. We just write people off without a second thought."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/national/05lifer.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)