Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:37 am
Time: 12:37 am
Results for life without parole
16 results foundAuthor: LaBelle, Deborah Title: Second Chances: Juveniles Serving Life Without Parole in Michigan Summary: Each year in the United States, children as young as thirteen are sentenced to die in prison. It’s called life without parole. It is estimated that thousands of children have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for crimes committed at an age when they are not considered responsible enough to live away from their parents, drive, make decisions related to their education or medical treatment, vote, leave school, or sign a contract. Children under the age of eighteen cannot legally use alcohol, serve on juries, or be drafted, because they are presumed not to have the capacity to handle adult responsibilities. These differences between childhood and adulthood are recognized throughout the world, and incorporated in international human rights documents. Despite a global consensus that children cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults, in the last twenty years the trend in the United States has been to punish children the same as adults. Children are increasingly excluded from the protection of juvenile courts based on the nature of the offense, without any consideration of their maturity, culpability, or current or future danger to society. In particular, Michigan allows a child of any age to be tried as an adult, and excludes seventeen-yearolds from juvenile treatment altogether. These children are then subject to adult punishment, incarcerated in adult prisons, and may be sentenced to life without parole. Despite their young age, these juveniles are expected to negotiate the legal system and understand the consequences of decisions that could result in a life without parole sentence, even though research suggests they are not capable of understanding what “forever” means. Since the 1980s, the number of children given life sentences without hope of release has increased dramatically and the cost of warehousing them for life is staggering to our communities and to our humanity. In Michigan alone, there are now more than three hundred individuals serving life without parole for offenses committed prior to their eighteenth birthday. Under current laws, none will be given a second chance. Until now, little attention has been given to who these children are and how they have been treated by the criminal justice system. This report examines juvenile life without parole sentences imposed in Michigan for offenses committed by individuals under eighteen, as they compare to the nation and the world. The report outlines the nature and extent of these sentences, their inequities and their toll on society, and presents recommendations for a rational and humane response to juvenile crime. Details: Detroit: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, 2004. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2011 at: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/Publications/Juv%20Lifers%20V8.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/Publications/Juv%20Lifers%20V8.pdf Shelf Number: 121471 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Michigan)Life SentenceLife Without ParoleSentencing |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan Title: Juvenile Life Without Parole Project: Using International Law and Advocacy to Give Children a Second Chance Summary: This project delves into an under-recognized human rights problem in the United States - the imposition of life sentences without possibility of parole on children (JLWOP). JLWOP requires that a child remain in prison without release until death. Irrespective of whether the child poses a threat to society or has, or can be, rehabilitated, there is no opportunity for parole. Each year in the United States, children as young as thirteen are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison without opportunity for parole. Despite a global consensus that children cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults, the United States allows children to be treated and punished the same as adults. Children are increasingly excluded from the protection of juvenile courts based on the nature of the offense, without any consideration of age, maturity or culpability of the child, and without taking steps to ensure their understanding of the legal system under which they are prosecuted. Life sentences without possibility of parole have been renounced internationally as a violation of human rights in The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifically forbids sentences of life imprisonment for children under the age of eighteen. The United States stands alone in rejecting this article of the Convention and in the implementation of this sentence on adolescents convicted of crimes in the United States. Three years ago the ACLU of Michigan began advocacy efforts after learning that over 300 Michigan children are currently serving these unforgiving sentences. This packet includes background information, research, a list of endorsing individuals and organizations of our efforts to eliminate this practice in the State of Michigan, and recommendations about what others can do to help this effort. Details: Detroit: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, 2007. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2011 at: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/pdf/JWLOPpacket.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/pdf/JWLOPpacket.pdf Shelf Number: 121472 Keywords: Human RightsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Michigan)Life SentenceLife Without ParoleSentencing |
Author: Weisberg, Robert Title: Life in Limbo: An Examination of Parole Release for Prisoners Serving Life Sentences with the Possibility of Parole in California Summary: In recent years, California’s prison system has been under federal judicial control because of severe overcrowding, which partly results from the recycling of revoked inmates under parole supervision. The federal litigation has cast a sharp focus on the mandatory parole system created by the 1976 Determinate Sentencing Law and viewed as the legal mechanism by which this recycling has developed. But far too little attention has been given to the prison population serving life sentences with the possibility of parole under older indeterminate sentencing principles, a population that as of 2010 represents a fifth of California state prisoners. More than 32,000 inmates comprise the “lifer” category, i.e., inmates who are eligible to be considered for release from prison after screening by the parole board to determine when and under what condition. (This group of prisoners is distinct from the much smaller population of 4,000 individuals serving life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP)). The goal of this project is to examine in empirical detail (a) the lifer population, covering key details of its demographics, and (b) the processes by which lifers are considered for release, including an examination of historical trends in grant and denial rates, the recidivism record of released inmates, and legal and policy analysis of the specific mechanisms of the parolee hearing process. Despite the importance of the lifer population in terms of its size and the major legal and policy changes that have occurred to the parole process for lifers in the last several years, little research has yet been devoted to this topic. This is the first in a series of reports the Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC) will be issuing on this topic. It describes the scope of the population of prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole, as well as the process by which they are considered for release. It also includes initial analysis from our research examining Board of Parole Hearings transcripts the factors that might correlate with grant and denial decisions. Finally, this report identifies important research questions we are now pursuing. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/publications_pdf/SCJC%20Lifer%20Parole%20Release%20Sept%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/publications_pdf/SCJC%20Lifer%20Parole%20Release%20Sept%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 122807 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleLifersParoleSentencing (California) |
Author: Calvin, Elizabeth Title: Against All Odds: Prison Conditions for Youth Offenders Serving Life without Parole Sentences in the United States Summary: Currently, more than 2,500 inmates in the United States await death in adult prison, sentenced to life without parole for crimes they committed while they were under the age of 18. Youth offenders serving life without parole enter prison with developmental needs for protection, education, and other services in order to be able to fully mature into adulthood. Yet youth offenders are among the inmates most susceptible to physical and sexual assault during their incarceration, are often placed in isolated segregation, and are frequently classified in ways that can deprive them of access to rehabilitative programs. The United States is the only country in the world with youth offenders serving life without parole sentences, in violation of international human rights law. Against All Odds details the strong evidence that youth offenders serving life without parole are imprisoned in conditions that violate fundamental international human rights law and standards. Based on information from corrections departments across the country and hundreds of youth offenders serving life without parole, the report documents how states fail to protect youth offenders from physical assault and sexual violence, to administer adequate mental health care, or to provide access to age-appropriate services and programs. Despite the fact that the length of their sentence and their youth upon entering adult prison make growth and rehabilitation extraordinarily difficult, some youth offenders sentenced to life without parole do achieve emotional, intellectual, and personal transformation in prison—an extraordinary fact given the hurdles they face. Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to abolish the sentence of life without parole for crimes committed by persons below the age of 18 and to investigate and improve conditions for youth offenders imprisoned across the United States. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0112ForUpload_1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0112ForUpload_1.pdf Shelf Number: 123546 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersLife Imprisonment, JuvenilesLife Without ParolePrison Rape, JuvenilesSexual Assault, Juvenile Inmates |
Author: Amnesty International Title: 'This is Where I'm Going to Be When I Die' Children Facing Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Release in the USA Summary: More than 2,500 people in the USA are serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for crimes committed when they were younger than 18 years old, in violation of international human rights law respected around the world. The USA is believed to be the only country that continues to effectively condemn such young offenders to die in prison. This report highlights the cases of three people – Jacqueline Montanez, David Young and Christi Cheramie – serving life without parole for crimes committed when they were children. Every case is different and their stories cannot represent the experiences of the many hundreds of people currently serving this sentence across the country. However, their cases show why Amnesty International is calling on the USA to join the rest of the world in ending a punishment that is utterly incompatible with the basic principles of juvenile justice. Details: London: Amnesty International, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 26, 2012 at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/081/2011/en/cdde342e-5a70-40ca-bc93-39d298d07039/amr510812011en.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/081/2011/en/cdde342e-5a70-40ca-bc93-39d298d07039/amr510812011en.pdf Shelf Number: 123771 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersLife Imprisonment, Juveniles (U.S.)Life Without Parole |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: A Living Death: Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses Summary: Life in prison without a chance of parole is, short of execution, the harshest imaginable punishment. Life without parole (LWOP) is permanent removal from society with no chance of reentry, no hope of freedom. One should expect the American criminal justice system to condemn someone to die in prison only for the most serious offenses. Yet across the country, thousands of people are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for nonviolent crimes as petty as siphoning gasoline from an 18-wheeler, shoplifting three belts, breaking into a parked car and stealing a woman's bagged lunch, or possessing a bottle cap smeared with heroin residue. In their cruelty and harshness, these sentences defy common sense. They are grotesquely out of proportion to the conduct they seek to punish. They offend the principle that all people have the right to be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity. This report documents the thousands of lives ruined and families destroyed by sentencing people to die behind bars for nonviolent offenses, and includes detailed case studies of 110 such people. It also includes a detailed fiscal analysis tallying the $1.784 billion cost to taxpayers to keep the 3,278 prisoners currently serving LWOP for nonviolent offenses incarcerated for the rest of their lives. Our findings are based on extensive documentation of the cases of 646 prisoners serving LWOP for nonviolent offenses in the federal system and nine states. The data in this report is from the United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and state Departments of Corrections, obtained pursuant to Freedom of Information Act and open records requests filed by the ACLU. Our research is also based on telephone interviews conducted by the ACLU with prisoners, their lawyers, and family members; correspondence with prisoners serving life without parole for nonviolent offenses; a survey of 355 prisoners serving life without parole for nonviolent offenses; and media and court records searches. Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 240p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-report.pdf Shelf Number: 131697 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife Sentence (U.S.)Life Without ParolePunishmentSentencing |
Author: Lerner, Craig S. Title: Life Without Parole as a Conflicted punishment Summary: Life without parole (LWOP) has displaced the death penalty as the distinctive American punishment. Although the sentence scarcely exists in Europe, roughly 40,000 inmates are serving LWOP in America today. Despite its prevalence, the sentence has received little academic scrutiny. This has begun to change, a development sparked by a pair of Supreme Court cases, Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), which express European-styled reservations with America's embrace of LWOP. Both opinions, like the nascent academic commentary, lament the irrevocability of the sentence and the expressive judgment purportedly conveyed-that a human being is so incorrigible that the community brands him with the mark of Cain and banishes him forever from our midst. In the tamer language of the Graham opinion, LWOP "forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal." This Article tests whether that phrase is a fair characterization of LWOP today, and concludes that the Graham Court's treatment of LWOP captures only a partial truth. Life without parole, the Article argues, is a conflicted punishment. The community indulges its thirst for revenge when imposing the sentence, but over time softer impulses insinuate themselves. LWOP is in part intended as a punishment of incalculable cruelty, more horrible than a prison term of many years, and on par with or worse than death itself. In practice, however, LWOP also emerges as a softer punishment, accommodating a concern for the inmate's humanity and a hope for his rehabilitation. Details: Arlington, VA: George Mason University School of Law, 2013. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series, 13-50: Accessed March 17, 2014 at: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1350LifeWithoutParole.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1350LifeWithoutParole.pdf Shelf Number: 131947 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole |
Author: Mills, John R. Title: No Hope: Re-examining Lifetime Sentences for Juvenile Offenders Summary: In a handful of U.S. counties, teenagers are still being sentenced to a lifetime in prison with no chance of release. This harsh and increasingly isolated practice falls disproportionately on black and Hispanic youth and is a remnant of an earlier period of punitiveness based on an unfounded prediction of a new class of superpredators that never actually materialized. While the use of this sentence has dramatically declined in recent years, it continues to be practiced in a relatively small number of jurisdictions. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to declare juvenile life without parole a cruel and unusual punishment, far outside our standards of decency in the twenty-first century. In Miller v. Alabama, the Court took the first step by forbidding mandatory sentences of life without parole for homicide offenses committed by juveniles (JLWOP). The opinion, however, left open the question of whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of life without parole upon juveniles entirely. That question, the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders, is being presented to the Court in two cases. In one case to be argued in October, the Court will consider whether its earlier rulings on this subject apply to past cases and not just cases going forward. A brief offered by the Charles Hamilton Institute for Race and Justice urges the Court to tackle the constitutional question of whether the punishment should stand at all. In another case, an inmate serving a JLWOP sentence has directly presented the question: "Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit sentencing a child to life without possibility of parole?" This report examines the key evidence for answering the question of whether there is now a national consensus against juvenile life without parole. To make this assessment, the Court generally examines legislative enactments and actual sentencing practices. This report catalogs the rapid abandonment of JLWOP, both legislatively and in terms of actual use. Although JLWOP dramatically expanded between 1992 and 1999 - an era of hysteria over juvenile super-predatorssince Miller states have rapidly abandoned JLWOP in law and practice. Nine states have abolished JLWOP after Miller, bringing the current number of jurisdictions completely banning the sentence to fifteen. California and Florida, two of the most frequent users of the sentence, have dramatically limited the reach of JLWOP by restricting its application to a narrow set of circumstances. Moreover, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington have abolished JLWOP for a category of offenders. This pace of abolition far outstrips those that occurred in the years prior to the high Court's rulings that the executions of juveniles and the intellectually disabled are unconstitutional. This report provides an in-depth analysis of state and county JLWOP sentencing practices. At the state level, just nine states account for over eighty percent of all JLWOP sentences. A single county, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, is responsible for nearly ten percent of all JLWOP sentences nationwide. Orleans Parish, Louisiana, has tenfold the number of JLWOP sentences as its population would suggest. Five counties account for more than one fifth of all JLWOP sentences. JLWOP, in practice, is isolated in a handful of outlier jurisdictions. Finally, state sentencing practices also show marked racial disparities in JLWOP's administration. Starting in 1992, the beginning of the super-predator era, a black juvenile offender would be twice as likely to receive a JLWOP sentence as his white counterpart. The disproportionate application of the punishment on juveniles of color is stark. All of Texas's JLWOP sentences were imposed on persons of color. Pennsylvania has imposed it eighty percent of the time on persons of color. There is now a growing consensus against JLWOP, calling into question its constitutionality. The policy's suspect origins and disparate implementation require rigorous examination to determine whether it serves any legitimate penological purpose. Details: Durham, NC: Phillips Black Project, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/5600cc20e4b0f36b5caabe8a/1442892832535/JLWOP+2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/5600cc20e4b0f36b5caabe8a/1442892832535/JLWOP+2.pdf Shelf Number: 136976 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleMinority GroupsRacial Disparities |
Author: Phillips Black Project Title: Juvenile Life Without Parole After Miller v. Alabama Summary: Across the country, we are beginning to turn the page on juvenile justice policies that are out of step with science, medicine, and common sense. They were informed by the popular myth of the juvenile superpredator. The prophesied generation of superpredators has never materialized, and the promised benefits of criminalizing childhood never arrived. The policies the myth spawned, however, remain. The results of these polices have been troubling. They created a straight line from poorly funded schools to juvenile hall and on to the institutions of adult mass incarceration. Our nation's least-advantaged children, the children of poverty, mental illness, and historically discriminated against groups, have fared the worst under these policies. Children of color have been disproportionately adjudicated as delinquents and institutionalized while their peers were far more frequently allowed to work things out without involving courts and jails. We stripped courts and prosecutors of the discretion required to provide treatment tailored to juveniles' individual needs, blinding our institutions to the reality that children are fundamentally different than adults. And we have sentenced thousands of our nation's youth to die in prison for crimes they committed before they were old enough to vote. The time for change has come. Courts and legislatures are rejecting the most extreme policies that were the product of this era. The use of life without parole sentences for children is waning. Solitary confinement for children is ending. Legislators are promulgating laws permitting courts and prosecutors to treat children differently than adults. And courts are now being required to exercise discretion in light of the unique aspects of the individual child before imposing the most severe sentences authorized for juveniles. This report focuses on this last development. The report catalogues how U.S. jurisdictions have responded to the Supreme Courts mandate to provide individualized sentencing of juveniles before sentencing them to life without possibility of parole. Even as we developed this report, states abandoned the practice of sentencing children to die in prison. We hope that the applicability of this report to juvenile life without parole sentencing will continue to decrease as juvenile life without parole sentences become exceedingly rare. However, we have focused on this mandate because it is premised on the need for individualized consideration at sentencing. We are each more than the worst thing we have ever done, a reality particularly salient for impetuous youth. When sentencing judges are able to consider a juvenile for who that person is as a unique individual and are able to tailor treatment accordingly, the mythical superpredator disappears, and a juvenile justice system very different than the one we currently have will emerge. Details: St. Louis, MO: Phillips Black Project, 2015. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2015 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/55f9d0abe4b0ab5c061abe90/1442435243965/Juvenile+Life+Without+Parole+After+Miller++.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/55f9d0abe4b0ab5c061abe90/1442435243965/Juvenile+Life+Without+Parole+After+Miller++.pdf Shelf Number: 137030 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleMiller v. Alabama |
Author: Sentencing Project Title: Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview Summary: An overview of developments regarding Juvenile Life without Parole: An Overview encompasses the impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which will sharply curtail the number of people serving life without parole sentences for offenses committed as juveniles. Approximately 2,500 people are currently serving life without parole for offenses committed as juveniles; 16 states and the District of Columbia have banned the use of the sentence for juvenile offenders. The policy brief traces a decade's worth of Supreme Court rulings, legislative responses to those rulings, and current research about teenage development and the juveniles likely impacted by the decision. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2016. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2016 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_Juvenile_Life_Without_Parole.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_Juvenile_Life_Without_Parole.pdf Shelf Number: 137877 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleSentencing |
Author: Perrin, Benjamin Title: Punishing the Most Heinous Crimes: Analysis and recommendations related to Bill C-53 (Life Means Life Act) Summary: Life in prison for a first-degree murder in Canada currently doesn't mean exactly that. The longest period of ineligibility for parole is 25 years, outside cases of multiple murders. While all murders are of course deplorable, many would argue that some killings are so heinous, so offensive to the public and damaging to Canadian society, that the killers should be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives. This would include violent predators who plan and deliberate about not only killing another human being, but do so while committing egregious crimes such as sexual assault, kidnapping, or terrorist activities. Or they involve the planned and deliberate killing of police officers or other officials tasked with keeping Canadians safe. To address this issue, the federal government has introduced Bill C-53, the Life Means Life Act, which would make life imprisonment without parole a mandatory sentence for certain heinous murders and a discretionary sentence in other instances. These lifers could apply after 35 years to the federal Cabinet for "executive release". There are legitimate reasons for adding life without parole to the Criminal Code, but there are also legitimate criticisms of Bill C-53. The legislation requires amendments if it is to achieve its stated goals without being struck down based on a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The main arguments supporting Bill C-53 are that it: enhances proportionality in murder sentencing; reflects denunciation and retribution in sentencing On the other hand, the main concerns about Bill C-53 are that it: is unnecessary and will not increase public safety; denies a second chance to convicted murderers; increases pressure on the corrections system and risk to staff and fellow inmates; includes "executive release" as an illusory hope and it is unlikely to be used in practice; and infringes the Charter. After canvassing these arguments, this paper concludes that life without parole would be appropriate and just in certain cases, but that Bill C-53 is vulnerable to being struck down for infringing the Charter as presently drafted. The following recommendations should be adopted: 1) Bill C-53 should be amended so that life without parole would be a discretionary - not a mandatory - sentencing option for heinous murders. The judge should also have the option of ordering a fixed-term parole ineligibility period of between 25 and 75 years. A jury recommendation, if it is a jury trial, should be sought in these cases. 2) The situations where Bill C-53 would currently provide for discretionary life without parole should not provide for that penalty but instead give the sentencing judge the option of ordering a fixed-term parole ineligibility period of between 25 and 75 years, with a jury recommendation where there is a jury. 3) All offenders serving life sentences with parole ineligibility periods greater than 35 years should be eligible to apply for executive release (not simply those sentenced to life without parole), up until the time that they become eligible for parole. 4) The Parole Board of Canada should provide an assessment to the Minister of Public Safety of all offenders serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole when they apply for executive release at least 35 years after beginning to serve their sentence. 5) The purposes of Bill C-53 should be clearly articulated. Heinous murderers are not sentenced as severely as they should be in Canada and there is constitutional room to enhance their penalties. However, Bill C-53 overreaches in this effort and thus risks failing to achieve needed reform.heinous murders, which are very important sentencing principles for serious and violent crime; spares victims the ordeal of frequent and ongoing automatic parole board hearings for murderers after their parole ineligibility periods have expired; ensures the protection of victims and society; and potentially contributes to general deterrence. Details: Ottawa, ONT: Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2016 at: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI-BPerrinPunishingTheMostHeinousCrimes-05-15-WebReady-v2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI-BPerrinPunishingTheMostHeinousCrimes-05-15-WebReady-v2.pdf Shelf Number: 145612 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife Without ParoleMurderersPunishmentSentencingViolent Crime |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: False Hope: How Parole Systems Fail Youth Serving Extreme Sentences Summary: In our inflated U.S. prison system, parole is supposed to provide an incentive and a path to earn release from prison. Instead, in many states, the parole system is defective and reflexively denies release even to model prisoners who went to prison as teenagers, have already served decades in prison, and no longer pose a safety risk. After growing up in prison, atoning for their crimes, staying out of trouble, and completing all available rehabilitative programming, thousands of people who were sentenced when they were young are finding that the promise of parole is an illusion, no matter what they do to prove their worthiness for release. These young people will needlessly grow old and die behind bars when the parole system fails to do what it is intended to do: identify and release those who have worked for redemption and earned a second chance at freedom. Despite extensive research that youth who commit even serious, violent offenses age out of crime and can be rehabilitated, our nation still incarcerates tens of thousands of people who were teenagers or in their early twenties at the time of their offense and are serving life or de facto life in prison. For most of these individuals, the only real chance for release and to be reunited with their families comes from parole. However, prisoners incarcerated since their youth are routinely denied parole, long after they’ve grown, matured, atoned, and been rehabilitated, and in many cases, solely because of the crime they committed in their youth—not because of who they are now. Parole boards are charged with the ultimate decision of who to release and when, but too often, they operate in obscurity, with little guidance and too much political pressure. In many cases, decisions about release are made in a matter of minutes, without ever meeting the applicant, and with no opportunity to evaluate the individual’s record. These parole boards, composed of a handful of people tasked with tens of thousands of cases each year, have tremendous power but little incentive to grant release, even to people who are fully rehabilitated, have served decades of their sentence, and pose no risk to the community. Even for people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles, the parole grant rates are abysmally low—for example, 0.5 percent of juvenile lifers were granted parole in Florida in 2015, and in Maryland, none have been granted parole in 20 years. But despite this dismal picture, reforms to the parole system are possible and can ensure that deserving individuals, sentenced in their youth, will get a fair, meaningful chance to be released and reunited with their families. Instead of allowing these individuals to grow old and die in prison, the parole process can reward and incentivize rehabilitation and honor our moral obligation to those we send away to grow up in prison. Details: New York: ACLU, 2016. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/report/report-false-hope-how-parole-systems-fail-youth-serving-extreme-sentences Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/report/report-false-hope-how-parole-systems-fail-youth-serving-extreme-sentences Shelf Number: 146275 Keywords: Juvenile JusticeJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ParoleJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole |
Author: Ghandnoosh, Nazgol Title: Delaying a Second Chance: The Declining Prospects for Parole on Life Sentences Summary: Most people serving life sentences were convicted of serious crimes. Their incarceration was intended to protect society and to provide appropriate punishment. But many were sentenced at a time when "life with the possibility of parole" meant a significantly shorter sentence than it has become today. Many remain incarcerated even though they no longer pose a public safety risk. Researchers have shown that continuing to incarcerate those who have "aged out" of their crime-prone years is ineffective in promoting public safety. Long sentences are also limited in deterring future crimes given that most people do not expect to be apprehended for a crime, are not familiar with relevant legal penalties, or criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems. Unnecessarily long prison terms are also costly and impede public investments in effective crime prevention, drug treatment, and other rehabilitative programs that produce healthier and safer communities. Despite this body of criminological evidence, the number of people serving life sentences has more than quadrupled since 1984—a faster rate of growth than the overall prison population. Even between 2008 and 2012, as crime rates fell to historic lows and the total prison population contracted, the number of people serving life sentences grew by 12%. By 2012, one in nine people in U.S. state and federal prisons - nearly 160,000 people were there under life sentences. Two factors have driven this growth: the increased imposition of life sentences, particularly those that are parole-ineligible,6) and an increased reluctance to grant parole to the 110,000 lifers who are eligible. This report documents the growing wait for parole among eligible lifers and identifies four factors producing longer prison terms for this population. The findings draw on a national survey in response to which 31 states and the federal government provided data for available years since 1980. The analyses reveal that a variety of policy choices and practices at the state and federal levels have caused recently paroled lifers to serve longer prison sentences than their counterparts in the past. Specifically, and as elaborated in 32 in-depth jurisdiction profiles: In South Carolina, lifers paroled in 2013 had served an average of 27.5 years in prison whereas those paroled in 1980 had served 11.6 years. In Missouri, time served among paroled lifers increased steadily from 15.0 years in 1991 to 25.2 years in 2014. In eight jurisdictions for which data are available since the 1980s, average time served by lifers with murder convictions nearly doubled from 11.6 years for those paroled in the 1980s to 23.2 years for those paroled between 2000 and 2013.8) In California, death before parole is not an uncommon outcome for lifers. A press spokesman for the corrections department has stated that "most lifers will die in prison before they get out on parole" and state records reveal that more lifers with murder convictions died in prison than were paroled between 2000 and 2011. Our examination of the 32 jurisdictions for which we were able to obtain data identifies four key drivers of the growth in prison terms for parole-eligible lifers: Legislation: Lawmakers in several states have made parole much harder to obtain by delaying when lifers can receive their initial parole consideration and by increasing the wait times for subsequent hearings after parole is denied. Gubernatorial Authority: Governors in some states have overhauled the composition of parole boards to appoint members who will reduce parole grants. In a few states, gubernatorial approval is necessary before parole boards can even review cases or for their recommendations to become final. Parole Board Decisions: Parole boards now are evaluating lifers who have served longer sentences than their counterparts in the past. Yet despite a general understanding that older parole applicants pose a reduced risk of recidivism, parole boards have not increased, and sometimes have even reduced, their grant rates. Parole Board Procedures: Most states afford only limited rights to incarcerated individuals during parole hearings and some recently have further narrowed these rights. Lifer parole procedures have broad implications. According to the American Law Institute, the most severe penalties serve as an "anchor point," or a benchmark of severity, on which penalties are established for less serious crimes.10) By placing upward pressure on prison sentences for people with less serious convictions, excessive prison terms for lifers have contributed to a major cause of mass incarceration. To reduce excessive prison terms, The Sentencing Project has previously recommended that states and the federal government abolish sentences of life without the possibility of parole and limit most prison sentences to a maximum of 20 years.11) Based on the findings of this report, we make four additional proposals. To reduce excessive sentences for parole-eligible lifers and to give rehabilitated individuals a meaningful opportunity for release from prison—as the Supreme Court now requires for those convicted as juveniles12)—we recommend that policymakers and parole practitioners: Expedite parole eligibility: Reduce the minimum number of years that lifers must serve before their first parole hearing and shorten wait times for subsequent hearings. Depoliticize and professionalize parole boards: Distance governors from paroling authorities to enable parole decisions to be based on meaningful assessments of public safety risk. Establish a presumption of release: Parole boards should assume that parole candidates are potentially suited for release at the initial, and especially subsequent, parole hearings unless an individual is deemed to pose an unreasonable public safety risk. Improve the integrity of parole hearings: Expand the procedural rights of parole applicants, enable parole applicants to review the evidence used to evaluate their eligibility for parole, and allow the public to review decision-making criteria and outcomes. This report is organized as follows: Section I presents key findings on lifer parole policies, practices, and outcomes across the country based on data provided by state and federal agencies and other organizations. Section II provides an in-depth look at a sample of four states: California, Georgia, Missouri, and New York. These states were chosen based on the size of their lifer populations, the representativeness of their lifer parole procedures and outcomes, geographic distribution, and availability of data. Sections III and IV summarize past research on people serving life sentences and on parole boards, respectively. Section V concludes by recommending reforms to depoliticize the parole process and reverse the excessive growth in prison terms for lifers. The Appendices present details on our methods of data collection and analysis. A supplemental document contains the profiles of all 32 jurisdictions for which we obtained data. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2017. 40p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2017 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf Shelf Number: 144932 Keywords: Life SentencesLife Without ParoleLifersParole |
Author: Nellis, Ashley Title: Still Life: America's Increasing Use of Life and Long-Term Sentences Summary: The number of people serving life sentences in U.S. prisons is at an all-time high. Nearly 162,000 people are serving a life sentence - one of every nine people in prison. An additional 44,311 individuals are serving "virtual life" sentences of 50 years or more. Incorporating this category of life sentence, the total population serving a life or virtual life sentence reached 206,268 in 2016. This represents 13.9 percent of the prison population, or one of every seven people behind bars. A mix of factors has led to the broad use of life sentences in the United States, placing it in stark contrast to practices in other nations. Every state and the federal government allow prison sentences that are so long that death in prison is presumed. This report provides a comprehensive profile of those living in this deep end of the justice system. Our analysis provides current figures on people serving life with parole (LWP) and life without parole (LWOP) as well as a category of long-term prisoner that has not previously been quantified: those serving "virtual" or de facto life sentences. Even though virtual life sentences can extend beyond the typical lifespan, because the sentences are not legally considered life sentences, traditional counts of life-sentenced prisoners have excluded them until now KEY FINDINGS - As of 2016, there were 161,957 people serving life sentences, or one of every nine people in prison. - An additional 44,311 individuals are serving "virtual life" sentences, yielding a total population of life and virtual life sentences at 206,268 - or one of every seven people in prison. - The pool of people serving life sentences has more than quadrupled since 1984.The increase in the LWOP population has far outpaced the changes in the LWP population. - There are 44,311 people serving prison sentences that are 50 years or longer. In Indiana, Louisiana, and Montana, more than 11 percent of the prison population is serving a de facto life sentence. - Nearly half (48.3%) of life and virtual life-sentenced individuals are African American, equal to one in five black prisoners overall. - Nearly 12,000 people have been sentenced to life or virtual life for crimes committed as juveniles; of these over 2,300 were sentenced to life without parole. - More than 17,000 individuals with an LWP, LWOP, or virtual life sentence have been convicted of nonviolent crimes. - The United States incarcerates people for life at a rate of 50 per 100,000, roughly equivalent to the entire incarceration rates of the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2017. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Still-Life.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Still-Life.pdf Shelf Number: 145329 Keywords: Life SentencesLife without ParolePunishmentSentencing |
Author: Fair Punishment Project Title: Juvenile Life without Parole in Wayne County: Time to Join the Growing National Consensus? Summary: A new report released today highlights Wayne County's frequent use of juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences, calling the county an "extreme outlier" in its use of the punishment. The report also criticizes D.A. Worthy's decision, which was announced Friday, to again seek life sentences for at least one out of three individuals currently serving this sentence. The report urges District Attorney Kym Worthy to adopt a new approach to dealing with juveniles in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which determined that the court's prior decision barring mandatory life without parole sentences for youth must be applied retroactively, and that the punishment is only appropriate in the rarest of cases where a juvenile is determined to be "irreparably corrupt." The report, Juvenile Life Without Parole in Wayne County: Time to Join the Growing National Consensus?, notes that Wayne County is responsible for the highest number of juvenile life without parole sentences in the country now that Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams has recently announced that he will not be seeking LWOP sentences for any of the individuals previously sentenced to JLWOP there. Currently there are more than 150 individuals serving JLWOP in Wayne County. While Wayne County has just 18% of the statewide population, it has at least 40% of the JLWOP sentences in the state of Michigan. Most incredibly, African-Americans are 39% of Wayne County's population, but more than 90% of the individuals serving juvenile life with parole sentences from the county are Black. D.A. Worthy's office obtained 27 JLWOP sentences during her tenure. "There is growing national consensus that life without parole is an inappropriate sentence for kids," said Rob Smith of the Fair Punishment Project. "D.A. Worthy's decision to again seek life without parole for one out of three individuals who were convicted as juveniles is completely out of line with the Supreme Court's ruling, mounting scientific research, the practices of prosecutors across the country, and years of experience that have shown us that youth are capable of change and deserve an opportunity to earn their release." The report notes that the Supreme Court has set a high bar to justify a life without parole sentence for juveniles. Given that adolescent brains are not fully developed and the capacity that children have to change, the Court rightfully assumes that it will be rare for an individual to meet the standard required for a JLWOP sentence. The report notes that D.A. Worthy's decision doesn't go nearly far enough in limiting the use of JLWOP, as it ignores mounting scientific evidence and a growing national consensus against the punishment. Details: Cambridge, MA: Fair Punishment Project, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2017 at: http://fairpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FPP-WayneCountyReport-Final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://fairpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FPP-WayneCountyReport-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 147383 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment Life Sentence Life Without Parole Sentencing |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: When I Die, They'll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life without Parole in California Summary: Approximately 227 youth have been sentenced to die in California's prisons. They have not been sentenced to death: the death penalty was found unconstitutional for juveniles by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. Instead, these young people have been sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives, with no opportunity for parole and no chance for release. Their crimes were committed when they were teenagers, yet they will die in prison. Remarkably, many of the adults who were codefendants and took part in their crimes received lower sentences and will one day be released from prison. In the United States at least 2,380 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 18. In the rest of the world, just seven people are known to be serving this sentence for crimes committed when they were juveniles. Although ten other countries have laws permitting life without parole, in practice most do not use the sentence for those under age 18. International law prohibits the use of life without parole for those who are not yet 18 years old. The United States is in violation of those laws and out of step with the rest of the world. Human Rights Watch conducted research in California on the sentencing of youth offenders to life without parole. Our data includes records obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and independent research using court and media sources. We conducted a survey that garnered 130 responses, more than half of all youth offenders serving life without parole in California. Finally, we conducted in-person interviews of about 10 percent of those serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth. We have basic information on every person serving the sentence in the state, and we have a range of additional information in over 170 of all known cases. This research paints a detailed picture of Californians serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth. Details: New York: HRW, 2008. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0108_0.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0108_0.pdf Shelf Number: 109150 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersLife Imprisonment, Juveniles (U.S.)Life Without Parole |