To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Below is a summary of the key points:
There are currently over 2,500 people who committed crimes as teenagers and are now serving life sentences without parole. However, twelve states have decided not to impose these sentences on young offenders. The majority of these sentences are in five specific states. Additionally, seventy-three children between the ages of 13 and 14 were involved in these crimes. Extensive research has demonstrated notable disparities in brain development between children and adults.
Society imposes age restrictions on minors for various activities such as purchasing cigarettes, alcohol, enlisting in the military, or entering into legal binding agreements like apartment leases until they reach 18 years old.
This is because minors are believed to lack the necessary maturity to make certain decisions. However, when a minor commits murder, we treat them as adults and ignore their incomplete brain development and reduced level of accountability. It is our responsibility as a society to safeguard our children from harsh punishments such as life imprisonment without parole for juveniles.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Capital Punishment
5 (893)
“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”
This policy brief will offer a historical overview of the juvenile justice system, current trends, and state of affairs while emphasizing the significance of this issue and presenting recommendations for reforming this policy.
CONTEXT AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM
It is crucial to protect children from cruel and unusual punishment in order to preserve our future. Nevertheless, there remains a heated controversy surrounding the implementation of mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders. To drive changes in the juvenile justice system, it is essential to examine its historical context and understand its current state.
The perception of juvenile offenders in society has undergone significant changes over time, which has had an impact on the overall objective of the system.
During the late 1800s, the juvenile system was established with the aim of reforming and rehabilitating young offenders, acknowledging that unfavorable environments played a role in influencing delinquent children. This resulted in the establishment of specialized institutions known as reformatories, which sought to create a home-like environment. The underlying belief was that children had unique needs that differed from those of adults. However, despite their intended purpose as gentle places, these institutions often subjected children to harsh labor conditions in factories and farms.
In the late 1800s, teenagers aged fifteen and older were often sent to adult prisons due to a lack of rehabilitation options. The justice system during that time failed to effectively handle serious crimes committed by young individuals or ensure fairness. In 1899, the first juvenile court system was established, followed by a federal system in 1906. By 1925, almost all states had their own juvenile courts and probation services. A court ruling in 1966 determined that juveniles were entitled to procedural protections and due process rights. However, in the late 1980s, there was a significant increase in violent crimes committed by young people which resulted in stricter nationwide laws. These laws were driven by fear, particularly fueled by frequent incidents of school violence. Consequently, it became widely believed that adult punishments should be applied for adult crimes.
The approach to addressing juvenile crime has shifted from rehabilitation and reform to a more punitive stance, resulting in an increase in incarcerated juvenile offenders and harsher sentences such as life without parole. However, society is beginning to change its attitude towards juvenile offenders. There is now a growing recognition of the inherent differences between children and adults, as well as their potential for growth and change. Recent studies on adolescent brain development support this idea by highlighting important distinctions that should be taken into account when determining appropriate sentences for juveniles.
Additionally, recent Supreme Court rulings have prohibited capital punishment for juveniles and restricted life without parole sentences to those convicted of homicide. Furthermore, in 2012, the Court directed judges to consider each individual child's mitigating circumstances.
The ruling in 2005, known as Roper v. Simmons, declared it illegal to impose mandatory life sentences without parole on all juvenile offenders. The Supreme Court determined that individuals under the age of 18 could not be sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were younger than 18 years old. This decision was based on the belief that giving a death sentence to minors is considered cruel and unusual punishment due to their immaturity and diminished responsibility for their actions. Consequently, this ruling impacted a total of 72 juvenile offenders across twelve states.
Prior to the Roper decision, there were a total of 22 executions carried out for offenses committed by minors. However, after the ruling, the most severe punishment a minor could receive became life imprisonment without parole. Then in 2010, another case called Graham v. Florida further restricted sentencing by prohibiting life without parole for minors who did not commit murder. This particular ruling immediately affected the sentences of 123 prisoners. It was recognized after this decision that crimes not involving murder are less deserving of such harsh punishment.
As a result of these rulings banning the death penalty for minors and limiting life without parole sentences solely to cases involving murder, approximately 2,500 prisoners were serving life imprisonment without parole for offenses they committed as juveniles.
In 2012, the Supreme Court made a ruling in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs stating that it is unconstitutional to give juvenile offenders life without parole, as it violates the Eighth Amendment. This decision requires judges to consider the character and extenuating circumstances of young offenders when deciding on an appropriate sentence. Experts have observed that teenage brains are still developing, allowing for potential changes as they mature. Adolescence is marked by temporary recklessness and challenges in evaluating consequences.
When imposing life without parole on juveniles, it is essential to consider their difficult upbringings, exposure to violence, and direct abuse. It is also crucial to take into account the influence of family and home environment on these individuals. Furthermore, racial disparity significantly affects this sentence as African American individuals are overrepresented among those sentenced to juvenile life without parole for crimes involving white victims. In contrast, white juvenile offenders with African American victims have a lower likelihood of receiving the same sentence. This ruling could potentially impact around 2,000 prisoners currently serving these sentences.
The recent ruling in Miller v. Alabama has impacted mandatory sentencing policies in 29 states and the federal government, but retroactivity guidelines for this ruling have not yet been established. Consequently, different responses from states have emerged. Certain state Supreme Courts argue that Miller should be applied retroactively, while others hold a contrary opinion. Consequently, most states have not made any modifications to their laws, leaving numerous prisoners anxiously anticipating the possibility of resentencing.
Currently, 15 states do not have prisoners serving life without parole sentences, while the remaining 35 states have fewer than 100 inmates serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed as juveniles. Additionally, juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) results in a significant financial burden. The cost of housing juveniles with LWOP requires substantial public spending over many years. It is estimated that each inmate costs about $31,000 per year to incarcerate. However, this amount increases to $65,000 due to higher medical expenses after turning 55. As a result, taxpayers will ultimately pay nearly $2 million for a juvenile's lifetime sentence.
Here are some specific recommendations:
Significant progress has been made in the treatment of cruel and unusual punishment for juvenile offenders. While it does not guarantee their release, the elimination of life without parole for juveniles provides an opportunity to review their case after serving a substantial portion of their sentence. This review considers factors such as the offender's family and home environment to determine eligibility for parole. Some countries require reviews after 10 to 15 years of imprisonment. If rehabilitation is found inadequate, the offender remains in prison with another review granted within five years. This approach to reforming juvenile life without parole enjoys widespread support, evident by California now allowing potential parole for individuals who committed crimes as minors after 15-25 years.
Requiring retroactivity for all states in the case of Miller would be a major step in policy reform. Critics of retroactivity argue that Miller did not prohibit life without parole for juvenile offenders, but rather mandated that judges follow a specific process when imposing this penalty. Those against retroactivity also stress the substantial cost associated with its implementation. They also contend that reallocating resources for resentencing could detract from ongoing cases, particularly those where relevant facts may not be available or do not exist. Moreover, implementing retroactivity could trigger the right to counsel for offenders seeking to challenge their sentence, further increasing the cost. Opponents adamantly assert that directing funds towards reforming juvenile sentencing for future cases after Miller would be a more prudent use of resources.
Proponents of retroactivity argue that the court intended for its ruling to apply retroactively, while opponents believe that a new rule should only benefit the defendant in the specific case. However, proponents argue that fairness requires the retroactive application of a rule to all who are similarly situated. Consequently, when the Court reversed Jackson v. Hobbs, it also allowed for other similar cases to be treated retroactively. Another proposed reform for this policy is to replace mandatory life without parole with lesser sentences, such as life with the possibility of parole or complete elimination of juvenile life without parole.
The suggested solution is to implement personalized sentencing for juvenile offenders, which requires conducting individual sentence hearings and assessments for minors charged with murder. However, if this law were applied retroactively, it would directly impact the families of the victims who may have to face potential consequences of parole board hearings for the offender. Additionally, community members with a financial stake in the prison industry would also be affected as their revenue gradually decreases. Lastly, schools and social workers can collaborate to identify children facing challenges within their family and home environment and offer support services to prevent them from committing crimes and getting involved in the juvenile justice system.
REFERENCES
The article titled "The End of Mandatory Juvenile Life without Parole" written by Megan Kennedy discusses the abolishment of this policy in the criminal justice system.
The text below is already unified and paraphrased, with the HTML tags and their contents kept intact:
Justice Policy Review. September 2014, Volume 25 Issue 5, Pages 553-578, DOI: 10.
1177/0887430341.
Review for the release titled "Juvenile Offenders, State Parole Practices & the Eighth Amendment" by Russell.
Sarah French authored an article that was published in the Winter 2014 issue of the Indiana Law Journal. The article is titled "Vol. 89 Issue 1" and it spans from page 373 to page 440. The article is 68 pages long.
Just Grow Up Already: The Decreased Responsibility of Youngsters Engaged in Gang Activities After
Miller V. Alabama. Kellogg, Sarah A. Boston College Law Review. 2014, Vol. 55 Issue
1, pages 265-299. 35 pages.
The Unconstitutionality of Mandatory Lifetime Juvenile Sex Offender Labeling: Branded for Life
Registration and Notification. Parker, Shannon C. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law.
2014, Volume 21 Issue 1, pages 167-205.
Criminal Law-Juvenile Life without Parole Sentences-Eleventh Circuit Holds that Miller Is Not
The text below is a citation for an article titled "Retroactive" published in the Harvard Law Review in February 2014. The article is in Volume 127, Issue 4 and spans from page 1252 to 1259. The article consists of 8 pages.
Mitigating After Miller: Legislative Considerations & Remedies for the Future of Juvenile
Sentencing by Sara E. Fiorillo in the Boston University Law Review in December 2013, Volume 93, Issue 6, pages 2095-
2129, 35p.
Symposium: Bombshell or Baby step? The Ramifications of Miller V Alabama for Sentencing
Law and Juvenile Crime Policy is an article written by Paul Litton and published in the Missouri Law Review in the Fall of 2013. The article is from Volume 78, Issue 4.
P 1003-1014. 12p.
Reforming Juvenile Life Sentences: A Call for Change. (2016, Aug 09). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/mandatory-life-without-parole-for-juveniles-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
