Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:42 am
Time: 11:42 am
Results for life sentence
23 results foundAuthor: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspectorate Title: A Review of Transition to Community Arrangement for Life Sentence Prisoners in Northern Ireland Summary: This review considers how well life sentence prisoners are risk assessed and managed in preparation for their release by the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS), Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) and the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. This report compares practice in Northern Ireland with other jurisdictions (England and Wales, mostly) to identify learning opportunities for the future. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 115349 Keywords: CommunitiesLife SentenceOffenders |
Author: Monahan, Lisa Title: Until They Die a Natural Death: Youth Sentenced to Life Without Parole in Massachusetts Summary: The Children's Law Center of Massachusetts identified and reviewed the cases of 46 people serving life sentences without parole in Massachusetts. Across the cases, youth were sentenced to life without parole for varying levels of participation in the crime and even if they were not the principal actor. The author, using new research data and interviews, attempts to answer whether or not youths are completely unredeemable at 14, 15, 0r 16 years old. Details: Lynn, MA: Children's Law Center of Massachusetts Source: Year: 0 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114894 Keywords: CorrectionsJuvenilesLife Sentence |
Author: Prison Reform International Title: Life Imprisonment and Conditions of Serving the Sentence in the South Caucasus Countries Summary: This report examines the situation of lifetime prisoners in South Caucasus countries. In South Caucasus countries where the criminal justice institutions are in continuous development and the resources are far from comparable with European countries, the difficulties associated with lifetime prisoner's prison conditions and rights are serious ones. It has been reported by different international organizations that the prison conditions in the region are below international standards. The observations state that the lifetime prisoners are threateneed by the lack of possibilities to exercise their rights and possibilities for rehabilitative and other activities during imprisonment are missing as well. The main concerns are about the poor prison conditions in general, but lack of rehabilitation and lack of possibilities for contacts with the outside world are common as well. Details: Tbilisi, Georgia: PRI South Caucasus Office, 2009. 122p. Source: Internet Resource; Project Global action to Abolish the Death Penalty Year: 2009 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 118672 Keywords: Life SentencePrison ConditionsPrisoners |
Author: Olotu, Michael Title: Evaluation Report: LifeLine Program Summary: In 1976, Canada removed the death sentence from its Criminal Code and replaced it with a life sentence disposition. There was a need to tailor the approach to target this group of offenders who are incarcerated for lengthy periods. In 1991, the LifeLine Program was implemented in collaboration with a community-based agency in the Ontario Region. The LifeLine Program is a voluntary program designed to provide support to offenders who are serving life or indeterminate sentences. Support is provided through in-reach workers who themselves are lifers or long-term offenders who are on parole and who have been living in the community without incident for at least five years. Their unique understanding and experience of serving a life or long-term sentence enables them to provide other lifers and offenders with indeterminate sentences with support based on those direct experiences. Currently, the LifeLine Program is a national program that involves three components: in-reach services, community support, and public awareness. The LifeLine mission statement is “to provide, through the in-reach and community components, an opportunity to motivate inmates and to marshal resources to achieve successful, supervised, gradual integration into the community”. The goal of the program is for the in-reach workers to meet with lifers and offenders with indeterminate sentences early in their sentence and assist in their adaptation and eventual integration into the correctional environment. Program delivery is managed through contractual service agreements with community agencies that are responsible for the three elements of the delivery model. A steering committee is responsible for providing leadership and direction to the LifeLine Program. The regional coordinators are responsible for managing the contracts with the respective community agencies in their region. The agencies hire, train and supervise the in-reach workers. Administrative and operational leadership is provided by the Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations. This report examines the following issues relating to the program: continued relevance of the program; implementation of the program; success of the program; and cost effectiveness. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector, 2009. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: File #394-2-60: Accessed October 15, 2010 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/ev-ll/ev-ll-eng.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/ev-ll/ev-ll-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 119989 Keywords: InmatesLife SentenceLifersVolunteers |
Author: Mitchell, Barry Title: Public Opinion and Sentencing for Murder: An Empirical Investigation of Public Knowledge and Attitudes in England and Wales Summary: With the possible exception of genocide, murder is widely regarded, by members of the public as well as by lawyers, as the most serious offence in the criminal calendar, and it continues to attract great public interest. Reflecting their most serious nature, murder cases continue to attract considerable coverage in the media. The death penalty for murder was wholly abolished by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 after it became apparent that the distinction between capital and noncapital cases was unsatisfactory. Since then, trial judges have been required to impose a life sentence on all persons convicted of murder. It was assumed that anything less than automatic indefinite imprisonment would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. This assumption has never been tested, however. One of the principal goals of the current research project was to explore the consequences on public opinion, of abolishing the mandatory life sentence for murder. The mandatory life sentence effectively consists of two distinct stages. The first is now known as the “minimum term” – formerly referred to as the “tariff” – which is a period of imprisonment that is intended to reflect the seriousness of the murder. In the vast majority of cases this term must be served in full, though it is possible for a prisoner to be released (on licence) before the expiry of the minimum term in very exceptional circumstances. When the minimum term has expired, the offender can be considered for release on licence but this will depend on the perceived risk that s/he poses to the public. In other words, release on licence is not automatic on expiry of the minimum term; a murderer will be detained in prison until s/he no longer poses an unacceptable danger to the public. One specific aspect of the murder law that has caused recent controversy and public debate relates to what is often called “joint enterprise” murder – i.e. when two people intend that a crime should be committed and one of them is present whilst the other commits murder but makes no attempt to prevent him from so doing. This has risen, for example, in gang killings where one or more members of a gang are present at the scene of a murder which is carried out by another member. Should those who make no attempt to prevent the killing themselves be guilty of murder? There seems to be some uncertainty about how a court would regard their liability: much is likely to depend on what the jury thinks the fellow gang members expected and that in itself will probably be uncertain. The main purpose of the present research program was to test empirically the assumption that the British public is firmly opposed to any alternative to the current sentencing arrangements for murder. Specifically, we explored public opinion towards the sentencing of cases of murder. This represents the first systematic attempt to map put the contours of public attitudes to this critical issue in criminal justice in this or any other jurisdiction. A secondary aim of the research was to gauge the public’s knowledge and understanding of the mandatory life sentence and the way in which it operates in practice. In pursuing these aims we also very briefly took the opportunity to gauge public opinion on “joint enterprise murder”. Details: London: Nuffield Foundation, 2010. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Public%20Opinion%20and%20Sentencing%20for%20Murder_Mitchell&Robertsv_FINAL.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Public%20Opinion%20and%20Sentencing%20for%20Murder_Mitchell&Robertsv_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 120131 Keywords: Life SentenceMurderersPublic OpinionSentencing |
Author: Equal Justice Initiative Title: Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14-Year-Old Children to Die in Prison Summary: In the United States, dozens of 13- and 14-year-old children have been sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole after being prosecuted as adults. While the United States Supreme Court recently declared in Roper v. Simmons that death by execution is unconstitutional for juveniles, young children continue to be sentenced to imprisonment until death with very little scrutiny or review. A study by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) has documented 73 cases where children 13 and 14 years of age have been condemned to death in prison. Almost all of these kids currently lack legal representation and in most of these cases the propriety and constitutionality of their extreme sentences have never been reviewed. Most of the sentences imposed on these children were mandatory: the court could not give any consideration to the child’s age or life history. Some of the children were charged with crimes that do not involve homicide or even injury; many were convicted for offenses where older teenagers or adults were involved and primarily responsible for the crime; nearly two-thirds are children of color. Over 2225 juveniles (age 17 or younger) in the United States have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. All of these cases raise important legal, penological, and moral issues. However, EJI believes that such a harsh sentence for the youngest offenders – children who are 13 and 14 – is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These children should be re-sentenced to parole-eligible sentences as soon as possible. Sentences of life imprisonment with no parole also violate international law and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia. EJI has launched a litigation campaign to challenge death in prison sentences imposed on young children. This report is intended to illuminate this cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on children, particularly for those who have been without legal help for so long that the procedural obstacles to winning relief in court will be formidable. Increased public awareness, coupled with informed activity by advocacy groups, will be necessary to reform policies that reflect a lack of perspective and hope for young children. Details: Montgomery, AL: Equality Justice Initiative, 2007. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.eji.org/eji/files/20071017cruelandunusual.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.eji.org/eji/files/20071017cruelandunusual.pdf Shelf Number: 107666 Keywords: ImprisonmentJuvenile OffendersLife SentenceSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: 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: Males, Mike Title: Striking Out: California’s “Three Strikes And You’re Out” Law Has Not Reduced Violent Crime. A 2011 Update. Summary: In March 1999, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) released a report through the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) that investigated the effects of the “Three Strikes” Law. It noted, In the wake of the widely publicized 1993 kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas, California Governor Pete Wilson signed into law on March 7, 1994, one of the most punitive sentencing statutes in recent history. The law was dubbed “Three Strikes and You’re Out” because of its provision requiring 25-years-to-life prison terms for defendants convicted of any felony (or misdemeanor such as petty theft reclassified as a felony) after having previously been convicted of two specified “serious” or “violent” felonies. The law was affirmed by three-fourths of California voters through a statewide initiative in November of that year. The Three Strikes law promised to reduce violent crime by putting repeat violent offenders behind bars for life. The severe nature of the law was intended to maximize the criminal justice system’s deterrent and selective incapacitation effect. Under deterrence theory, individuals are dissuaded from criminal activity through the threat of state-imposed penalties. Selective incapacitation suggests that crime can be reduced by incapacitating the small group of repeat offenders who are responsible for a large portion of serious crime. As of December 31, 2010, 40,998 Californians were behind bars for strike offenses, including 8,727 for third strikes. While the second strike population in prisons actually declined over the 1999-2010 period, the third strike population, due to very lengthy sentences, nearly doubled. At an average of $46,700 per inmate per year, a 25-year sentence costs the State $1.1 million per inmate; a life sentence, assuming incarceration at age 43 (the average third strike commitment age) and death at 82 (the average life expectancy for a male alive at age 43) costs $1.8 million per inmate, even without adding the higher medical costs of aged prisoners. Thus, just imprisoning the current third-strike population will cost taxpayers at least $10 billion in 2010 dollars over the next 25 years. Despite its high costs, candidates of both major parties have credited the “Three-Strikes” law with reducing crime in California. However, national crime trends show that crime has been dropping in every region regardless of incarceration practices since the early 1990s. An earlier JPI study found that California’s declining crime rates were no different than in states without a Three Strikes law, while a CJCJ study found California counties that used the law the least had reductions in crime slightly larger than counties that used the law the most. Other early research found similar results, while some other studies have disagreed, and other recent reviews such as by the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law have found only mixed results. The crime control impact of the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law is an important subject to analyze. Under deterrence and incapacitation theories, counties that most heavily used the “Three Strikes” law, thereby removing larger proportions of their criminal population from public, should experience greater crime declines than more lenient counties. Because of its broad applications and disparate enforcement, California’s “Three Strikes” law provides a rare opportunity to analyze these theories. This report updates the 1999 Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice report using 2009 and 2010 data to examine crime trends in California counties with widely varying “Three Strikes” imprisonment levels. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed May 17, 2011 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Striking_Out_Californias_Three_Strikes_And_Youre_Out_Law_Has_Not_Reduced_Violent_Crime.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Striking_Out_Californias_Three_Strikes_And_Youre_Out_Law_Has_Not_Reduced_Violent_Crime.pdf Shelf Number: 121736 Keywords: DeterrenceLife SentenceSentencingThree Strikes Legislation (California)Violent Crime |
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: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan Title: Basic Decency: Protecting t5he Human Rights of Children Summary: Six years ago, through polling and focus groups, citizens of Michigan were asked this question: “How should we treat Michigan youth involved in homicide crimes?” People weighed the importance of just punishment, the need for public safety, and also considered their social responsibility to the troubled youth involved in the crime. Results revealed that these Michigan residents were deeply concerned that the most severe sentence our state laws can impose on an adult who commits murder is likewise imposed on a child who did not. They were also uncomfortable to learn that Michigan’s current laws do not allow a jury or a judge to consider a juvenile’s age, abusive upbringing, troubled environment, lack of maturity, or their potential for rehabilitation before imposing adult punishment. Most of those polled were unaware that hundreds of adolescents in our state, some as young as 14, have been sentenced to die in prison without an opportunity to demonstrate their remorse, show their potential for rehabilitation, or prove that they pose no risk to society. The 2006 polling revealed strong public opposition to our current laws, which require sentencing all young people between the ages of 14 and 17, who are convicted of an offense involving a first-degree homicide, to spend the rest of their lives in adult prison without any opportunity for parole. When faced with the issue, people in Michigan strongly supported eliminating the life without parole sentence for juveniles.1 They recognized the distinct differences between adults and developing adolescents, and supported sentencing practices that would protect youthful offenders from the adult consequences of their decisions.2 In 2008 a bipartisan majority of the Michigan House of Representatives passed legislation that would end Michigan’s practice of sentencing young people under the age of 18 to life without parole. The Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee refused to release these bills for a vote and the laws mandating this punishment remain in place. Introduction To date, 376 young people have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in Michigan. Only one other state has more. In recent years, editorials in major media outlets have called for, at minimum, judicial discretion in sentencing. Some legislators who initially favored this punishment for youth have since called for reform. Former Representative Burton Leland, a Democrat from Detroit, repudiating his initial support of the 1995 Juvenile Justice Reform Act explained, “We wanted to let thugs know that they can’t hide behind their mother’s apron. Now, 25 years later, I think locking youthful offenders up for life is ridiculous.” 3 Prosecutors, who are central opponents of juvenile life without parole reform, often make the argument of “adult time for adult crime.” However, most adults do not spend the rest of their lives in prison for comparable homicide crimes because prosecutors have full discretion to offer plea bargains of a lesser sentence to those adults charged with homicide crimes. Even where children are offered plea bargains, they are at a significant disadvantage in negotiating these same pleas. In fact, young people in Michigan are more likely to receive longer sentences than adults for comparable offenses. This report examines the arguments for and against reforming Michigan’s laws that mandate a life without parole sentence for youth involved in certain homicide crimes. It addresses the disadvantages children face in the adult criminal justice system and analyzes the data resulting from the implementation of this sentence. This report also explores the fiscal and human costs of sentencing a young person to life without parole (LWOP) in Michigan. Details: Detroit, MI: ACLU of Michigan, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2012 at: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/BasicDecencyReport2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/BasicDecencyReport2012.pdf Shelf Number: 125310 Keywords: HomicideJuvenile Offenders (Michigan)Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole, JuvenilesSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: O'Hear, Michael M. Title: Not Just Kid Stuff? Extending Graham and Miller to Adults Summary: The United States Supreme Court has recently recognized new constitutional limitations on the use of life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for juvenile offenders, but has not clearly indicated whether analogous limitations apply to the sentencing of adults. However, the Court’s treatment of LWOP as a qualitatively different and intrinsically more troubling punishment than any other sentence of incarceration does provide a plausible basis for adults to challenge their LWOP sentences, particularly when they have been imposed for nonviolent offenses or on a mandatory basis. At the same time, the Court’s Eighth Amendment reasoning suggests some reluctance to overturn sentencing practices that are in widespread use or otherwise seem to reflect deliberate, majoritarian decisionmaking. This Essay thus suggests a balancing test of sorts that may help to account for the Court’s varied Eighth Amendment decisions in noncapital cases since 1991. The Essay concludes by considering how this balancing approach might apply to the mandatory LWOP sentence established by 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(A) for repeat drug offenders. Details: Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Law School, 2013. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 13-14 : Accessed May 29, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267595 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267595 Shelf Number: 128843 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole (U.S.)Sentencing |
Author: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending Title: Parolable Lifers in Michigan: paying the Price of Unchecked Discretion Summary: Hundreds of Michigan prisoners sentenced to "parolable life" terms have been eligible for release for one, two or even three decades. As a group, they are aging, low-risk and guilty of offenses comparable to those for which thousands of other people have served a term of years and been paroled. Each parole board decision to incarcerate a lifer for another five years - often based on nothing more than a single board member's review of a file - costs taxpayers roughly $200,000. Americans have certain expectations of government. In times of tight budgets and soaring costs, the one most discussed is cost-effectiveness. We want to spend as few taxpayer dollars as possible to fulfill governmental functions. We also want transparency, so we know how decisions are being made; accountability, so that decisions are subject to review and, if necessary, correction; consistency, so that outcomes are predictable and similarly situated citizens are similarly treated; and objectivity, so that decisions are based on evidence, not emotions or unsupported assumptions. The parole decision-making process for lifers violates all these norms. It is one of the few areas where a group of unelected officials has virtually unlimited power over people's lives and the public purse. Over the last few decades, a series of policy changes with no proven impact on public safety has undermined the parole process for prisoners generally and for lifers in particular. The solutions are simple and straightforward: return to practices that protected both public safety and taxpayers' pocketbooks. Details: Lansing, MI: CAPPS, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Shelf Number: 131898 Keywords: Costs of ImprisonmentDecision-MakingJudgesLife ImprisonmentLife Sentence ParoleParole Board |
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: Nellis, Ashley Title: Life Goes On: The Historic Rise in Life Sentences in America Summary: n recent years, states around the country have been reconsidering the value of using incarceration as the primary tool for responding to criminal behavior. After a decades-long surge, modest declines in prison populations are now occurring nationally and various state legislatures have reformed sentencing laws that reduce the incarceration of people convicted of certain offenses. In 2011 and 2012, this led to 17 states closing some of their prisons. Despite these developments, the number of prisoners serving life sentences continues to grow even while serious, violent crime has been declining for the past 20 to correlate with increasingly lengthy sentences. This report details the rise of the lifer population in America's prisons, now standing at nearly 160,000, with almost 50,000 people serving life sentences without parole (LWOP). In order to comprehensively assess trends in the use of life imprisonment we undertook a survey of persons serving life sentences in the corrections systems in all 50 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons during 2012. We sought to obtain data on the number of persons serving such sentences, demographic characteristics, type of offense, and trends in the use of life sentences over time. The lifer population has more than quadrupled in size since 1984. One in nine people in prison is now serving While release could be attained through a successful application for executive clemency, this mechanism for release is rarely utilized. In our 2009 report, No Exit: The Expanding Use of Life Sentences in America, we noted that there were 41,095 people serving LWOP sentences and a total of 140,610 people serving life sentences nationally. Some state departments of corrections have revised these numbers slightly since our last report. The updated numbers are provided.a life sentence and nearly a third of lifers will never have a chance at a parole hearing; they are certain to die in prison. This analysis documents long-term trends in the use of life imprisonment as well as providing empirical details for the offenses that comprise the life-sentenced population. KEY FINDINGS - As of 2012, there were 159,520 people serving life sentences, an 11.8% rise since 2008. - One of every nine individuals in prison is serving a life sentence. - The population of prisoners serving life without parole (LWOP) has risen more sharply than those with the possibility of parole: there has been a 22.2% increase in LWOP since just 2008, an increase from 40,1745 individuals to 49,081. - Approximately 10,000 lifers have been convicted of nonviolent offenses. - Nearly half of lifers are African American and 1 in 6 are Latino. - More than 10,000 life-sentenced inmates have been convicted of crimes that occurred before they turned 18 and nearly 1 in 4 of them were sentenced to LWOP. - More than 5,300 (3.4%) of the life-sentenced inmates are female. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Life%20Goes%20On%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Life%20Goes%20On%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 130017 Keywords: IncarcerationLife ImprisonmentLife SentencePrisonersPunishmentRacial Disparities |
Author: New South Wales. Inspector of Custodial Services Title: Lifers: Classification and Regression Summary: Recent media reports have been critical of the Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) inmate classification system; in particular, how this system is applied to inmates serving life sentences ('lifers'), and the access of the lifer cohort to other than a maximum-security classification. Many of the reports contained misinformation about the purpose and operation of the classification system and about the level of 'privileges' afforded to inmates. The media reports also indicate an absence of understanding with regard to information sharing between CSNSW and registered victims, and expectations related to security conditions for offenders serving life sentences. The media reports have also implied that, in recent years, there have been changes to the policies and practices by which lifer inmates, and other maximum-security inmates, are managed. The tenor of these suggestions, in essence, is that the management of the correctional system in general, and of lifer inmates in particular, does not meet community expectations. The terms 'soft treatment', 'cushy treatment', 'privileges' and 'social reform' have been used repeatedly in media reports. Objective This report will examine the classification of life-sentenced inmates. This is an issue that has attracted media and community interest recently. Commentary not based on evidence does little to promote public confidence in the justice system. This report will outline the purpose and importance of the inmate classification system in the NSW correctional system. It will examine the structure of the inmate classification system in NSW with particular reference to lifers. The ways in which CSNSW engages with victims of crime and shares information with them will also be discussed. It is the view of the Inspector that concerns around lifers and their classification warrant inspection under the provisions of the Act as they are in the public interest. Details: Sydney: NSW Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Lifers%20Classification%20and%20regression.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Lifers%20Classification%20and%20regression.pdf Shelf Number: 136941 Keywords: Inmate ClassificationLife ImprisonmentsLife Sentence |
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: Stageberg, Paul Title: Status Report: Juvenile Offenders Serving Life Sentences in Iowa Summary: Over a century ago the United States started developing and implementing juvenile courts; based upon the concept that juveniles were not as mature as adults, and were more amicable to rehabilitation. Current, ongoing research indicates that the human brain does not fully develop until the early to mid-twenties. This brain development research has been a portion of the impetus to the United States and Iowa Supreme Courts to conclude that juveniles are not as culpable as adults and that sentences for juveniles convicted of serious crimes must be individualized to take into account a youth's development and other relevant factors. While advances have been made in the understanding of brain development, scientists are urging caution when linking brain development with human behavior, as the research in this relationship continues. The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down three significant decisions regarding the sentencing of youth prosecuted in criminal (adult) courts: Roper v. Simons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama. Each of these decisions changed sentencing possibilities for youth convicted in criminal (adult) courts. Additionally, in 2013 the Iowa Supreme Court, in State v. Ragland, concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller was a substantive change and in Iowa would apply retroactively. Since 1964, there have been 48 youth in Iowa who have been sentenced to life-in-prison without the possibility of parole. Seven of those sentences were for convictions on non-homicide offenses, and the remaining 41 were for murder in the first degree. Of these, there have been four inmates released from prison, two upon their deaths, one case was overturned, and one was released on parole. In 2011, a change to the Iowa Code established a life sentence with a possibility of parole after serving a minimum of 25-years for those youth convicted of a class 'A' felony that was not a murder in the first degree. This change to the Iowa Code was in response to Graham v. Florida. In 2012 Governor Branstad commuted the sentences of the 38 persons serving life-without-parole for murder in the first degree whose offenses had been committed by offenders under age 18. This commutation order specified new sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 60 years. The Governor's commutations were in response to Miller v. Alabama. As of this report there are currently 28 inmates who are in the process of court actions based on the Graham and Miller decisions. Additionally, one of the commuted inmates, Kristina Fetters, has been paroled to hospice after her prison term was re-sentenced. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Status%20Report--Juvenile%20Offenders%20Serving%20Life%20Sentences%20in%20Iowa.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Status%20Report--Juvenile%20Offenders%20Serving%20Life%20Sentences%20in%20Iowa.pdf Shelf Number: 138569 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersLife ImprisonmentLife Sentence |
Author: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Law and Justice Title: Security classification and management of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment Summary: In July 2015 it became publicly known that some inmates sentenced to life imprisonment had been reclassified to a medium or minimum security level. This became a prominent matter in the media following an outcry from the public and victims' families. The Commissioner of Corrective Services subsequently reclassified these inmates from their lower security classifications to maximum security. This inquiry was established soon afterwards to consider how lifers should be classified and whether they should have access to rehabilitation programs. Summary of recommendations Recommendation 1 32 That the NSW Government amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 to establish a separate classification for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment with little or no prospect of release from custody that is based on the risk they pose to the community, preserves the good order of correctional facilities and ensures the safe and effective management of the inmates. Recommendation 2 32 That Corrective Services NSW develop and action a comprehensive communication strategy to educate the public on the operation of the New South Wales correctional system. Recommendation 3 44 That the NSW Department of Justice consider merging the victims registers of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, Juvenile Justice and Corrective Services NSW. Recommendation 4 45 That Corrective Services NSW trial an opt-out Victims Register for victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Recommendation 5 45 That, as part of the opt-out system at recommendation 4, Corrective Services NSW establish a policy whereby the Victims Register conduct a one-off follow up of victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment who have opted-out of the register to ask if the victim would like to reconsider joining the register, and that victims be informed of this policy when they initially make the decision to opt-out. Recommendation 6 49 That Corrective Services NSW establish a policy whereby, as soon as possible following sentencing, the Victims Register provide an information package to victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment and offer to telephone or meet with them to explain the correctional system, custodial management practices and the day-to-day life of an inmate and that it consider doing this in the presence of a counsellor. Recommendation 7 49 That Corrective Services NSW develop, in consultation with victim support groups and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, a form to be provided to victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment following sentencing that includes a list of matters that victims can nominate to receive updates about, and that this form also be made available to current victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Recommendation 8 55 That the NSW Government amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 to state that, in cases where the Commissioner for Corrective Services does not adopt the recommendations of the Serious Offenders Review Council, reasons as to why the recommendations were not adopted must be provided. Recommendation 9 62 That the NSW Government consider measures to improve the capacity of the prison system to adequately house, manage and care for aged and frail inmates, including to establish designated units and areas in more correctional centres in New South Wales. Details: Sydney: NSW Parliament, 2016. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/344106974ffada7bca257f8a0082b906/$FILE/Final%20Report%20-%20Security%20classification%20and%20management%20of%20inmates%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/344106974ffada7bca257f8a0082b906/$FILE/Final%20Report%20-%20Security%20classification%20and%20management%20of%20inmates%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment.pdf Shelf Number: 138627 Keywords: Inmate ClassificationInmatesLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLifersPrisoners |
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: 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 |