Detroit Free Press Editorial: Repeal Michigan’s juvenile lifer law

Today’s Detroit Free Press (3/1/2010) featured an editorial in favor of repealing Michigan’s law requiring judges to impose the maximum adult sentence to juveniles as young as 14.  The editorial is based on the fact that juveniles are less culpable for their crimes than adults. The article points out that “teenagers are more impulsive and unstable than adults, even without the abuse and neglect many young offenders have experienced.” You can view the editorial here (Repeal Michigan’s juvenile lifer law).

Detroit Free Press Covers Juvenile Mandatory Life Sentences for Murder

The Detroit Free Press published a couple of excellent articles regarding mandatory life sentences for crimes committed by juveniles in Sunday’s (2/28/2010) paper.  One article addresses whether children who commit murders should be subjected to mandatory life sentences.  You can find the article here (2nd chance for killer kids?).  The Free Press also wrote an excellent summary regarding how these laws came into being, the various public policies behind them and events that prompted them.  You can find that article here ( State got tough on juvenile trouble-makers in ’80s, ’90s ).

Graham v. Florida; Sullivan v. Florida – Life Imprisonment for Juveniles

Last month the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases addressing whether juveniles may be sentenced to life imprisonment – Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida. Joe Harris Sullivan, now 33,  was sentenced to life in prison at age 13 for raping a 72-year-old woman in Pensacola, Florida.  Terrance Jamar Graham was 16 when he robbed a restaurant in Jacksonville.  Both prisoners had long rap sheets before they received life sentences.  The issue before the court in these cases is whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile’s commission of a non-homicide crime.

Based on the questions and statements by the justices at oral argument, it appears the Court is divided along the typical right / left lines.  Those on the left are looking for a bright line test similar to the one established by the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons in 2005, whereby juveniles under the age of 18 could not be sentenced to death.   Those justices on the right, represented by Justices Alito and Scalia, simply do not believe the Eighth Amendment makes any distinctions regarding age.  Justice Roberts proposed requiring trial judges to take age into account before sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole, a compromise stand that appeared aimed at winning over Justice Anthony Kennedy, who usually is the swing vote on this Court.

The arguments that life sentences for juveniles in non-homicide cases is based on the premise that the punishment does not fit the crime because juveniles are not as culpable for their actions as adults.  This is because of the development of the juvenile brain and life in prison denies any chance at rehabilitation.  The opposing side takes the view that punishment is not the only thing to be considered in criminal sentencing.  The Court must also consider retribution, or the public’s right to punish the juvenile severely for particularly heinous crimes. By closing the door on life imprisonment, the public is denied the opportunity to impose this severe sanction.

Aside from the punishment vs. retribution argument, there is also the issue of whether the Court should adopt bright line tests.  Chief Justice Roberts argues judges should balance the child’s age against the heinousness of the crime.  Both the left and the right see the issue as an all or nothing proposition.  For the juvenile practitioner, it is easy to jump on to Chief Justice Roberts’ totality of the circumstances approach.  We understand that each child’s rate of development is different and we are accustomed to using expert evaluations to determine what level of understanding the child had of his or her crime and what treatment methods would be most effective to rehabilitate the child.  However, we must also be aware of the fact that making case-by-case determinations result in wildly different approaches.  This undermines the predictability that is critical in our system of justice.

These cases clearly have implications on Michigan Law.  Under MCL 712A.18(m), in designated cases, the court “impose any sentence upon the juvenile that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense for which the juvenile was convicted.”  This includes life imprisonment.  Because these cases would directly impact Michigan Law, I thought it was good subject matter for this web site.

What rule do you think the U.S. Supreme Court should use in these cases – a bright line test one way or another or give judges discretion to sentence to life in prison based on the age of the child and other factors?

The Juvenile Lifer Law: The Debate Continues

The Detroit News printed an article regarding the juvenile lifer law today.  The byline reads, “Mich. ranks second in number of young killers behind bars.”  The report cites a study from the University of Texas that says Michigan has the second most such inmates in the country. The report also says Michigan is among the harshest in the way it treats teens accused of major crimes.

“Children simply aren’t as culpable as adults because their brains aren’t fully developed yet, and they are much more capable of rehabilitation,” said Michele Deitch, an adjunct professor at the University of Texas and principal investigator of the study.

The option to sentence juveniles as adults is “harsh” treatment, the study’s authors said. Michigan’s guidelines — unlike most states’ — require a child who is convicted as an adult of first-degree murder to receive the same sentence as an adult: mandatory life in prison without parole.

The report, released this summer, gave Michigan the dubious distinction, along with three other states — Pennsylvania, Florida and South Carolina — of having children most likely to end up in adult prisons, because of mandatory sentencing laws and the ease of transferring juveniles into the adult system or imposing adult sentences.

If you read this blog often you know that I believe Michigan has a duplicitous view of juvenile delinquency.  The statute indicates that the purpose is rehabilitation, but in practice, the law functions more to punish.  Michigan should decide what the public policy is in addressing juvenile delinquency.

You can view the article here: Teen lifers a burden for state’s prisons.