Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:11 am
Time: 12:11 am
Results for sentencing, juveniles
5 results foundAuthor: 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: Nellis, Ashley Title: The Lives of Juvenile Lifers: Findings from a National Survey Summary: The United States stands alone worldwide in imposing sentences of life without parole on juveniles. The U.S. achieved this unique position by slowly and steadily dismantling founding principles of the juvenile justice system. Today a record number of people are serving juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences in the U.S. for crimes committed before their 18th birthday. Sentences of life without parole are often erroneously believed to translate to a handful of years in prison followed by inevitable release. The reality is that a life without parole sentence means that the individual will die in prison. This report provides a new perspective on the population of individuals serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed in their youth. It represents the findings of a comprehensive investigation into this population that includes a firstever national survey of juvenile lifers. Through this effort we obtained in-depth information from these individuals about their life experiences prior to their conviction, as well as descriptions of their lives while incarcerated. The findings are sobering, and should become an element of policy discussion regarding this extreme punishment. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf Shelf Number: 124336 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Life ImprisonmentSentencing, Juveniles |
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: Kent, Jody Title: A Just Alternative to Sentencing Youth to Life in Prison Without the Possibility of Parole Summary: There are more than 2,500 people in the United States serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed under the age of eighteen. In the spring of 2010, the United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of imposing such sentences on a subset of these juvenile offenders who were convicted of non-homicide crimes. This constitutional challenge was brought before the court in two cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, for for which arguments were heard in November 2009. As Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged in those oral arguments, the Court has previously recognized that “juveniles are different.” Regardless of whether the Court extends that precedent to find the sentencing of youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole unconstitutional in one or both of these cases, advocates for youth have called for reform of extreme sentencing policies, on the basis that they grossly undermine rational, fair, and age-appropriate treatment of youth. This Issue Brief begins by explaining why the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole is deeply flawed public policy. First, we address the long-recognized principle that youth are different from adults, reinforced in recent years by adolescent development brain science, as well as by examples of youth who were successfully rehabilitated. Second, we critique the frequently argued notion that harsh sentencing is necessary to protect public safety, a premise undermined by both the inconsistent and arbitrary application and by the resulting diversion of taxpayer dollars that could be used to increase public safety through prevention programs. Third, we discuss how the sentencing of youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole undermines America’s moral standing in the world, as the only nation in the world that imposes this irrevocable sentence on people under the age of eighteen. We conclude the Issue Brief with a suggested alternative to the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole which balances the need to hold youth who commit serious crimes accountable, while still recognizing their inherent capacity for change. We recommend the creation of a system that would allow for meaningful periodic review of sentences given to youth convicted of serious offenses to determine whether they continue to pose a threat to society or may be able to return to our communities as productive citizens. This is a common sense solution to an irrational and grossly misguided policy. Details: Washington, DC: American Constitution Society for Law and Society, 2010. 10p. Source: Issue Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2012 at http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Kent%20Colgan%20Juvenile%20Life%20Issue%20Brief_0.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Kent%20Colgan%20Juvenile%20Life%20Issue%20Brief_0.pdf Shelf Number: 126404 Keywords: Life Imprisonment, JuvenilesLife Without Parole, JuvenilesSentencing ReformSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: Child Rights International Network Title: Inhuman Sentencing: Life Imprisonment of Children Around the World Summary: In 2010 CRIN, with other partners, launched a campaign for the prohibition of inhuman sentencing of children - defined to include sentences of death, life imprisonment and corporal punishment. Frustrated by the narrow focus on life imprisonment without parole within the children's rights community, CRIN published a report on life imprisonment in the Commonwealth in 2012, highlighting the prevalence of life imprisonment throughout the Commonwealth States and the different forms that life sentences could take. This report was followed up in 2013 with a report on life sentences for children in the European Union. Life imprisonment sentences cover a diverse range of practices, from the most severe form of life imprisonment without parole, in which a person is sentenced to die in prison so long as their sentence stands, to more indeterminate sentences in which at the time of sentencing it is not clear how long the sentenced person will spend in prison. What all of these sentences have in common, however, is that at the time the sentence is passed, a person is liable to be detained for the rest of his or her natural life. International human rights standards universally condemn life imprisonment without parole for children, and now the United States is the only State which continues to sentence children to this form of extreme sentencing. This focus on the worst forms of the sentence, however, has disguised the practice of less severe or overt forms of life imprisonment. The United Nations has begun to look at life imprisonment of children more generally and in November 2012, the General Assembly urged States to consider repealing all forms of life imprisonment for children. The Human Rights Council, meanwhile, has called on States twice to prohibit life imprisonment of children in law and practice. Nonetheless, 73 States retain life imprisonment as a penalty for offences committed while under the age of 18 and a further 49 permit sentences of 15 years or longer and 90 for 10 years or longer. Life imprisonment and lengthy prison sentences for child offenders are not the preserve of a diminishing few, they can be found in the criminal laws of the majority of States. CRIN is concerned that States are handing out lengthy sentences to children, yet international condemnation is often limited to life imprisonment without parole and the death penalty. It is essential - indeed long overdue - to widen the focus and challenge any sentence which, at the time it is passed, a child is liable to be detained for the rest of his or her natural life. It is also time to look at laws permitting the lengthy detention of children, which fall short of the standards set by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. CRIN, with other commentators, believes that the only justification for the detention of a child should be that the child has been assessed as posing a serious risk to public safety. Courts should only be able to authorise a short maximum period of detention after which the presumption of release from detention would place the onus on the State to prove that considerations of public safety justify another short period of detention. The same principles should apply to pre-trial detention. This report serves to highlight the prevalence and the plurality of laws permitting life imprisonment for children, laws that potentially condemn children to die in prison, and hopes to lead to reviews of the sentencing of children to ensure they are fully compliant with the CRC and other instruments. CRIN believes that life imprisonment, of any type, does not have a place in juvenile justice. Details: London: Child Rights International Network, 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_imprisonment_report_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_imprisonment_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 135059 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment Life SentencesSentencing, Juveniles |