Do you think that a minor’s age should be considered when they are being sentenced for a crime?
If the crime a youth committed was a violent act such as rape or murder, would your answer to the first question change?
Last year the United States Supreme Court barred mandatory life without parole sentences for individuals who committed crimes while they were under the age of 18. Among the primary reasons the 5-4 vote passed was because the majority justices felt the extreme sentencing violated the 8th Amendment and was considered cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, the justices felt “mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features – among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences.”
While the judgment includes offenders under the age of 18, it does not mandate that individuals sentenced prior to the ruling be freed, nor does it forbid life terms for minors. Instead, the Supreme Court ruling leaves the ultimate decision on the judges of each minor’s case. Such judges must consider the minor’s age and the nature of the crime before making the ultimate decision of whether or not to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Sounds pretty fair, right?
Yes, as long as the designated judges adhere to the specifications of the justices’ ruling.
Unfortunately, that has not always been the case.
Recent reports show that since the Supreme Court’s decision last June, some judges and lawmakers have imposed guidelines that – while within the confines of the ruling – still impose a bias that unfairly restricts individuals convicted as minors.
One example is Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.
While Branstad commuted the life sentences of inmates who committed their crimes while minors, he also mandated that they serve 60 years before seeking parole. Other states have been just as “creative” as Iowa, by implementing mandatory minimum sentences before an inmate is eligible for parole. For some states, that minimum requirement is 35 years.
So, are the Supreme Court justices right, or are lawmakers such as Branstad correct?
More likely than not, the answer circles back to how you responded to the two questions at the beginning of this editorial.
However, if individual judges and lawmakers respect the ruling and stipulations of the high court, minor offenders at least have a shot at fair sentencing, while still being held accountable for their crimes.
I believe that anyone who commits a crime should be punished accordingly, but I also think that the extent of that punishment should be determined on a case-by-case basis. There are children who commit crimes, yet still have the potential to be great, law abiding adults once they’ve received proper therapy and guidance, and after they’ve served time for their crimes. However, there are also youth who commit crimes and yet do not have the potential to be upstanding citizens. It’s all on a case-by-case basis and that’s how judges and lawmakers should approach the situation.
I recently spoke with an individual who has worked in juvenile detention centers as well as state prisons for the better part of 30 years. This person told me that many of the men he’s encountered over the years are serving life sentences – even for nonviolent crimes. As a matter of fact, the gentleman told me most of the offenders he has encountered are not murderers. Instead, they did something irresponsible or downright dumb as a child, but they didn’t deserve life in prison. The officer also told me that the lack of love, guidance and a generally unstable home life are more the issues than the crimes actually committed.
I found a particular aspect of our conversation especially interesting: when the officer told me when many of the youth enter juvenile, they are not monsters who are beyond rehabilitation. Instead, he said the penal system often makes inmates monster-like because they are faced with so many challenges such as fending off other inmates who prey on them as well as dealing with overly authoritative personnel.
His thoughts were a very interesting perspective from someone with nearly 30 years in the corrections industry.
You can email comments to Shannon Williams at shannonw@indyrecorder.com.
