The Supreme Court Looks at the Issue of Juvenile LWOP, Asking if Life Sentences for Kids are Constitutional

A week from Tuesday the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, two cases concerning whether the sentencing a 14-year-old killer to life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

For those who are interested in the juvenile LWOP issue (a sentence of Life Without the possibility of Parole), the go-to site to track the legal side of the matter is Doug Berman’s Sentencing Law & Policy, as Berman is parsing the various developments in the twinned cases with a very experienced eye.

For instance, Berman points out that the precursor for the Jackson and Miller cases to be heard next week, is the SCOTUS ruling on the earlier cases of Roper and Graham, which concerned LWOP for kids who had not committed murder, and which the court found to be unconstitutional. Thus it’s going to be interesting to watch the various SCOTUS justices respond when their own wise words are bounced right back to them in this broader set of cases.

If you want to get still wonkier, take a look, for example, at the amicus brief filed by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association for Social Workers. It gives an idea of how the petitioner attorneys will quote the Supremes—to themselves.

Begin by reading the opening of the summary from that brief, which you’ll find on page 15.

---

HOW THE CASE MAY AFFECT OTHER STATES

In addition, all this week, Michigan Live is doing an excellent series on Juvenile Life, although neither of the cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court next week are from Michigan (they are from Alabama and Arkansas). Still, Michigan is second only to Pennsylvania for its number of juvenile lifers, thus the Michigan Live team is pulling apart the issue for its readers. (LA Times? This might be a good time for a California series, no?)

Here’s how the first one opens:

He was 14 years, 11 months and 1 day old.

That night TJ Tremble rode his bike to the home of Peter and Ruth Stanley. He had the .22-caliber rifle given him by his dad. He had alcohol in his belly, some also from his dad. And, police say, he had murder on his mind.

Before daylight, the Michigan youth would be behind bars for the rest of his life. Or maybe not.

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether mandatory life sentences are too cruel for anyone so young. It will be exactly 14 years, 11 months and 1 day since Tremble got on his bike.

Now 29, is it possible he has changed in the second half of his life, or that he can change with more time? Should he at least have the consideration to one day walk free?

Or does death make it different?

In a state with more “juvenile lifers” than almost any other, the answers will resonate throughout Michigan as the high court addresses this: Are life sentences, without any chance of parole, unconstitutional even for juveniles who commit unthinkable crimes?

If the court’s earlier rulings are an indication, the answers could be yes.

[But the reporters acknowledge these are not simple issues, particularly for the families of victims.]

“It rekindles it,” says Dennis Stanley, son of the murdered Peter and Ruth Stanley, of next week’s hearing. “I was just thinking of that this morning. It’s like counting down to April 1997. We’re still very bitter, angry and, sure, we go about our lives. But no one knows what the victims go through.”

“It never ends,” he says. “It never ends.”

---

AND ON OTHER JUVENILE JUSTICE ISSUES…..THE LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL VOTE TUESDAY ON WHETHER TO OPPOSE GOVERNOR BROWN’S PLAN TO CLOSE THE STATE’S JUVIE PRISONS—AKA DJJ

Youth advocates like the Youth Justice Coalition will show up at the Supes’ meeting on Tuesday to ask the Supervisors to instead work to “create a local alternative to DJJ so families can stay involved and programming can be more consistent.”

It’s a complicated choice, to be sure, but DJJ is preposterously expensive, and has no good record of doing right by its charges. The recidivism rate is horrendous.

On the other hand, LA County’s juvenile facilities—run by the probation department— have their own problems (to understate the matter greatly). In choosing between two bad choices, I tend to lean toward what the YJC says. Bring these kids home, and take the state’s money to deal with them here.

But that is if—and only if—we can commit to providing appropriate oversight and programs for them. Alameda County, for example, is doing just that. But, thus far, LA seems to have little stomach for such an endeavor.