Juvenile Life Sentences

As we all are aware of by now, the Supreme Court had a pair of major decisions handed down last Monday, the first being its holding that sentences of life in prison without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes was unconstitutional. [ Graham v. Florida, 08-7412 ]

"The inadequacy of penological theory to justify life without parole sentences for juvenile non-homicide offenders, the limited culpability of such offenders, and the severity of these sentences all lead to the conclusion that the sentencing practice at issue is cruel and unusual," the Court’s syllabus read..

"Embodied in the cruel and unusual punishments ban is the 'precept . . . that punishment for crime should be graduated and pro-portioned to [the] offense,' the Court said, referring to the 1910 precedent Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349.

"Cases implementing the proportionality standard fall within two general classifications. In cases of the first type, the Court has considered all the circumstances to determine whether the length of a term-of-years sentence is unconstitutionally excessive for a particular defendant’s crime. The second classification comprises cases in which the Court has applied certain categorical rules against the death penalty. In a subset of such cases considering the nature of the offense, the Court has concluded that capital punishment is impermissible for non-homicide crimes against individuals. e.g., Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. ___. In a second subset, cases turning on the offender’s characteristics, the Court has prohibited death for defendants who committed their crimes before age 18, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, or whose intellectual functioning is in a low range, Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304… A categorical rule avoids the risk that, as a result of these difficulties, a court or jury will erroneously conclude that a particular juvenile is sufficiently culpable to deserve life without parole for a non-homicide."

The Court also considered the practical matter that "Nationwide, there are only 129 juvenile offenders serving life without parole sentences for non-homicide crimes. Because 77 of those offenders are serving sentences imposed in Florida and the other 52 are imprisoned in just 10 States and in the federal system, it appears that only 12 jurisdictions nationwide in fact impose life without parole sentences on juvenile non-homicide offenders, while 26 States and the District of Columbia do not impose them despite apparent statutory authorization. Given that the statistics reflect nearly all juvenile non-homicide offenders who have received a life without parole sentence stretching back many years, moreover, it is clear how rare these sentences are, even within the States that do sometimes impose them."

Finally, in remanding the case to Florida, the Court said, too, that "Because age '18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood,' it is the age below which a defendant may not be sentenced to life without parole for a non-homicide crime… A State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to such an offender, but must impose a sentence that provides some meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. It is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance."

[ A second related juvenile case, Sullivan v. Florida, 08-7621, was dismissed per curium by the Court as being improvidently granted ]

Also, a National Law Journal article, this afternoon, indicated the Justice Department's studying Monday's Supreme Court ruling barring life sentences for juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes, with a possible an eye toward improving rehabilitation programs for juveniles in prison, according to statements made by Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson told an American Bar Association public defender conference in Knoxville last night.


See National Law Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and CNN articles.