END LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR JUVENILES: MILLER V. ALABAMA (DECIDED: JUNE 25, 2012)

            On this date, June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. How would you feel if your family member was murdered by a juvenile offender and at least, 15 or 20 years later, he was released to go free and kill again? Say ‘Thank You’ to the ACLU who are so happy for it. Yamaji Yukio, Rogelio Cannady, Abdullah T. Hameen and Lee Andrew Taylor were several perfect examples of juvenile killers who murdered again when they were released or killed behind bars, now they were all executed and will never murder again. I will post information from Wikipedia and some other news sources about ending LWOP for juveniles in the United States.

(SOURCE: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/28/170028/affirmative-action-drug-sniffing.html#.UcbxTpySKuI)

Miller V. Alabama Argued March 20, 2012 Decided June 25, 2012
Full case name	Evan Miller, Petitioner v. Alabama; Kuntrell Jackson, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Docket nos.	10-9646 10-9647
Citations	567 U.S. ___ (more)
Prior history	conviction affirmed sub nom. Miller v. State, 2010 WL 2546422 (Ala. Crim. App. June 25, 2010); rehearing denied, and new decision published, 63 So.3d 676 (Ala. Crim. App. August 27, 2010); certiorari denied sub nom. Ex parte Miller, unpub. n°1091663 (Ala. October 22, 2010); certiorari granted, 565 U. S. ___ (2011) conviction affirmed sub nom. Jackson v. State, 359 Ark. 87, 194 S.W.3d 757 (2004); petition for habeas relief dismissed, unpub. n°cv-08-28-2 (Jefferson Cnty Cir. Ct.); affirmed, 2011 Ark. 49, ___ S. W. 3d ___ (2011); certiorari granted, 565 U. S. ___ (2011)
Holding
The Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentencing scheme that requires life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Kagan, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concurrence	Breyer, joined by Sotomayor
Dissent	Roberts, joined by Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Dissent	Thomas, joined by Scalia
Dissent	Alito, joined by Scalia

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. The ruling extended beyond the Graham v. Florida (2010) case, which had ruled juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional for crimes excluding murder.

Background

The decision of the court based on two consolidated cases, Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10-9647, and Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646. The Los Angeles Times wrote: "In one case that came before the court, Kuntrell Jackson was 14 when he and two other teenagers went to a video store in Arkansas planning to rob it. He stayed outside, and one of the youths pulled a gun and killed the store clerk. Jackson was charged as an adult and given a life term with no parole. In the second case, Evan Miller, a 14-year-old from Alabama, was convicted of murder after he and another boy set fire to a trailer where they had bought drugs from a neighbor. He too was given a life term with no parole."

Opinion of the Court

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority of the court "that mandatory life without parole for those under age of 18 at the time of their crime violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments." “Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” Justice Kagan added. “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

Chief Justice John Roberts voiced in his dissent the opinion that mandatory life sentences “could not plausibly be described” as unusual when a majority of states endorse them. And he further wrote: “Determining the appropriate sentence for a teenager convicted of murder presents grave and challenging questions of morality and social policy. Our role, however, is to apply the law, not to answer such questions.” A separate dissent was filed by Justice Samuel Alito. “Even a 17 ½-year-old who sets off a bomb in a crowded mall or guns down a dozen students and teachers is a ‘child’ and must be given a chance to persuade a judge to permit his release into society,” Alito wrote of the consequences of the majority ruling. “Nothing in the Constitution supports this arrogation of legislative authority.”

The holding of the court applies to all those under 18, doesn't automatically free any prisoner, and it doesn't forbid life terms for young murderers. Instead judges have to consider the defendant’s youth and the nature of the crime before sentencing the defendant to imprisonment with no hope for parole.

The case was remanded to the trial court for the convicted youths to be re-sentenced.

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/justices-bar-mandatory-life-sentences-for-juveniles.html?_r=3&

June 25, 2012

Justices Bar Mandatory Life Terms for Juveniles

By ADAM LIPTAK and ETHAN BRONNER

WASHINGTON — Some 2,000 juvenile offenders serving life sentences without parole were given hope of eventual release by the Supreme Court on Monday. The court ruled that laws requiring youths convicted of murder to be sentenced to die in prison violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. 

The 5-to-4 decision divided the court along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the four members of the liberal wing. Justice Kennedy also provided the decisive vote in two other decisions issued Monday — on Arizona’s immigration law and on a sequel to the court’s decision in the Citizens United campaign finance case. 

Writing for the majority in the decision concerning juvenile offenders, Justice Elena Kagan said the Constitution forbids “requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes.” 

In barring the punishment for killings committed before age 18, Justice Kagan drew on two lines of precedent, both rooted in the court’s death penalty jurisprudence. 

The first concerned harsh penalties imposed on juvenile offenders. In 2005, in Roper v. Simmons, the court eliminated the juvenile death penalty. In 2010, in Graham v. Florida, the court ruled that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole was also unconstitutional, but only for crimes that did not involve killings. That decision affected about 130 prisoners convicted of committing, before they turned 18, crimes like rape, armed robbery and kidnapping. 

The new decision did not draw a categorical line. Instead, the majority looked to a second line of cases, these barring mandatory death sentences and insisting instead that judges and juries, in Justice Kagan’s words, “consider the characteristics of a defendant and the details of his offense before sentencing.” 

The cases before the court concerned two men who were involved in killings when they were 14. 

One of them, Kuntrell Jackson, was with two older youths when the three tried to rob an Arkansas video store in 1999. One of the older youths shot and killed a store clerk. 

The other, Evan Miller, and an older youth beat a 52-year-old neighbor in Alabama in 2003 after the three had spent the evening smoking marijuana and playing drinking games. The youths then set fire to his home, and the neighbor died of smoke inhalation. 

The problem with mandatory sentences, Justice Kagan wrote, is that “every juvenile will receive the same sentence as every other — the 17-year-old and the 14-year-old, the shooter and the accomplice, the child from a stable household and the child from a chaotic and abusive one.” 

“Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” Justice Kagan added. “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.” 

Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law firm in Alabama that represented the defendants in the ruling, called it “an important win for children.” 

“Today’s decision requires the lower courts to conduct new sentencing hearings where judges will have to consider children’s individual character and life circumstances, including age, as well as the circumstances of the crime,” he said. But he added that the resentencing must be initiated by the inmates, that many lacked the resources to pay for a lawyer, and that the Supreme Court had said prisoners seeking new hearings have no constitutional right to counsel. 

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 2,500 inmates are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were juveniles, including more than 2,000 — 80 percent — through the kind of mandatory sentencing systems barred on Monday by the court. 

The United States is one of the few countries that have not signed the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, which bans life sentences without parole and execution for those under age 18, said Connie de la Vega, a law professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law. She also said that while many countries executed more criminals than the United States did, very few had laws imprisoning adults — let alone juveniles — for life without the possibility of parole. 

Justices Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Kagan’s opinion in the two consolidated cases, Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10-9647, and Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646. 

In a concurrence, Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Sotomayor, said the Eighth Amendment should also bar sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders who participated in crimes that led to killings but who did not intend to kill. 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a dissent joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the court was confusing decency with leniency. He added that longer and mandatory sentences had developed only since the 1980s, making it hard to argue that abolishing them was part of the country’s evolving standards of decency. 

“It is a great tragedy when a juvenile commits murder — most of all for the innocent victims,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “But also for the murderer, whose life has gone so wrong so early. And for society as well, which has lost one or more of its members to deliberate violence, and must harshly punish another.” 

In a separate dissent read from the bench, an unusual move indicating deep disagreement with the majority opinion, Justice Alito made a similar case in stronger language. 

“Even a 17 ½-year-old who sets off a bomb in a crowded mall or guns down a dozen students and teachers is a ‘child’ and must be given a chance to persuade a judge to permit his release into society,” he wrote of the consequences of the majority ruling. “Nothing in the Constitution supports this arrogation of legislative authority.” 

INTERNET SOURCE: http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-09-30-california-ends-%E2%80%98life-without-possibility-parole-kids

California Ends ‘Life Without Possibility of Parole' for Kids

September 30, 2012

Governor Brown signs Senator Yee’s Fair Sentencing for Youth Act

SACRAMENTO – Today, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senator Leland Yee’s Senate Bill 9 – the Fair Sentencing for Youth Act – which will give youth serving life without parole an opportunity to earn a second chance.

Approximately 300 youth offenders have been sentenced to die in California’s prisons for crimes committed when they were teenagers. SB 9 will give some youth sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) a chance to earn parole after serving at least 25 years in prison. 

“I commend Governor Brown for having the courage, understanding, and leadership to sign SB 9,” said Yee, who is a child psychologist. “The Governor’s signature of SB 9 is emotional for both the supporters and the opposition, but I am proud that today California said we believe all kids, even those we had given up on in the past, are deserving of a second chance.”

The United States is the only country in the world where people who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crime serve sentences of life without parole.

Under Senate Bill 9, courts could review cases of juveniles sentenced to life without parole after 15 years, potentially allowing some individuals to receive a new minimum sentence of 25 years to life. The bill would require the offender to show remorse and be working towards rehabilitation in order to submit a petition for consideration of the new sentence. 

“SB 9 is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it is an incredibly modest proposal that respects victims, international law, and the fact that children have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults,” said Yee. “The neuroscience is clear – brain maturation continues well through adolescence and thus impulse control, planning, and critical thinking skills are not yet fully developed. SB 9 reflects that science and provides the opportunity for compassion and rehabilitation that we should exercise with minors.”

“SB 9 becoming law speaks volumes for who we are as a society – that we value our children,” said Yee.

Supporters of SB 9 included child advocates, mental health experts, medical organizations, faith communities, and civil rights groups. In recent weeks, SB 9 also gained high level support from the Democratic Leader of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, as well as a number of law enforcement leaders including San Francisco’s police chief, sheriff, and district attorney.

“In California, a sentence of life without parole is a sentence to die in prison,” said Elizabeth Calvin, children’s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. “Teenagers are still developing. 

No one – not a judge, a psychologist, or a doctor – can look at a sixteen year old and be sure how that young person will turn out as an adult. It makes sense to re-examine these cases when the individual has grown up and becomes an adult. There’s no question that we can keep the public safe without locking youth up forever for crimes committed when they were still considered too young to have the judgment to vote or drive.”

In California, prosecutors and judges have some discretion on whether to pursue LWOP for juveniles. However, several cases call such discretion into question.

One such case involves Christian Bracamontes, who was 16 and had never before been in trouble with the law. One day when Christian’s friend said, “Hey do you want to rob this guy?” Christian replied in what can only be described as a quintessential adolescent response, “I don’t care.” When the victim refused to comply with his friend’s demand, Christian said he thought the bluff was called, and he remembered turning away and bending down to pick up his bike and leave, when he heard a gunshot.

The prosecutor offered a lower sentence, but in Christian’s teenage mind he could not see how he would be responsible for the other person’s actions and he turned down that deal. The DA was quoted in the newspaper as saying, “It’s hard for teenagers to understand concepts like aiding and abetting.” Christian was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

A report published by Human Rights Watch found that in many cases where juveniles were prosecuted with an adult for the same offense, the youth received heavier sentences than their adult codefendants.

Despite popular belief to the contrary, Human Rights Watch found that life without parole is not reserved for children who commit the worst crimes or who show signs of being irredeemable criminals. Nationally, it is estimated that 59% of youth sentenced to life without parole had no prior criminal convictions. Forty-five percent of California youth sentenced to life without parole for involvement in a murder did not actually kill the victim. Many were convicted of felony murder, or for aiding and abetting the murder, because they acted as lookouts or were participating in another felony, such as a robbery, when the murder took place.

One prosecutor who has publically supported Yee’s bill, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón said, “I recognize the ability of young people to reform their behavior and be rehabilitated as they mature. SB 9 holds youth responsible for their actions. It creates a rigorous system of checks and balances, and provides a limited chance for young offenders to prove they have changed – both to a judge and to a parole board.”

California also has the worst record in the nation for racial disparity in the imposition of life without parole for juveniles. African American youth are serving the sentence at a rate that is eighteen times higher than the rate for white youth, and the rate for Latino youth is five times higher.

Each new youth offender given this sentence will cost the state upwards of $2.5 million. To continue incarcerating the current population of youth offenders already sentenced to life without parole until their deaths in prison will cost the state close to $700 million.

###

Contact: Adam J. Keigwin,

(916) 651-4008

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE ON THE DEATH PENALTY OF THE WEEK ABOUT THIS NEW LAW.