SCOTUS Takes 2 Juvenile LWOP Case… & OC Boy Gets Life Sentence

SCOTUS WILL HEAR TWO CASES OF JUVENILE LWOP TO DETERMINE IF THEY’RE CRUEL & UNUSUAL

The Supremes dithered and dithered over whether to take these cases, “relisting” them four times—meaning they didn’t say yes, but didn’t say no, but said to come back again.

Then on Monday SCOTUS surprised court watchers by agreeing to hear a matched pair of juvenile LWOP** cases, both involving young men who were 14 when the murders were committed. The question they will address is whether on whether sentencing young teenagers to die in prison violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

This is a very big deal.

The New York Times’ Adam Liptak has a good rundown on what these cases mean. Here’s a clip:

Last year, in Graham v. Florida, the court ruled that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional — but only for crimes that did not involve killings. The decision affected about 130 prisoners convicted of committing crimes like rape, armed robbery and kidnapping before they turned 18.

Human rights groups say there are more than 2,000 juvenile offenders serving sentences of life without parole. Writing for the majority in Graham, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that only the United States and perhaps Israel imposed the punishment even for homicides committed by juveniles.

The follow-up cases the court agreed to hear on Monday concern a subcategory of the remaining group, those who were 14 or younger when they were involved in murders. There are about 70 such prisoners, according to the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law firm in Alabama that represents the two inmates in the new cases.

Focusing on very young offenders may be good strategy for opponents of harsh punishment, and it has worked before. The Supreme Court eliminated the juvenile death penalty in stages, first ruling it unconstitutional as applied to offenders younger than 16 in Thompson v. Oklahoma in 1988 and then those younger than 18 in Roper v. Simmons in 2005.

The two cases the court agreed to hear Monday might also allow the court to draw a further distinction — between offenders who participated in crimes that led to killings and those who actually committed the killings….

Read the rest for a description of the actual cases.

Or read the filing for the cases here: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.

**LWOP means Life Without the possibility of Parole

---

OC BOY GETS LIFE FOR FATAL SHOOTING COMMITTED WHEN HE WAS 14

And…..while we’re on the topic of sending ridiculously young teenagers to prison for life: Fifteen-year-old Andrew Cervantes was 14-years old when he shot and killed a 17-year-old “enemy” gang member on a Santa Ana street. On Friday, a visibly irritated Superior Court Judge sentenced Cervantes to 40 years to life for the murder.

The OC Register has the story. Here’s a clip:

Rejecting a defense request for a more-lenient sentence, an Orange County judge on Friday sent a 15-year-old to state prison for 40 years to life for killing a rival 17-year-old gang member.

The boy was one of the youngest in Orange County to be tried and convicted as an adult – if not the youngest.

Andrew Cervantes was 14 at the time of the June 22, 2010, incident when he rode the bus from Buena Park, taking a loaded weapon with him to Santa Ana, where he shot and killed an unarmed Manuel Orozco following an encounter that began with staring at each other.

An Orange County jury convicted Cervantes in September of second-degree murder and street terrorism, with a sentencing enhancement for gang activity and use of a firearm. Use of a firearm brings a mandatory 25-years-to-life sentence and, combined with 15 years to life for second-degree murder, Cervantes faced 40 years to life.

Senior Deputy Alternate Defender Ken Morrison said Cervantes fired the gun in self defense when Orozco reached for his waist and he had no “specific intent” to kill…..

I know I sound like a broken record, but seriously. We understand that 14-year-olds are not emotionally and mentally mature enough to:

1. drive a car
2. sign a contract
3. see an R-rated movie (like The Hangover, Bridesmaids or Saving Private Ryan)
4. drink
5. buy tobacco
6. vote
7. have sex with an adult.
8. get a job

However, if they kill someone (or, as is true in many cases, are present when someone else kills someone), we suddenly throw out everything we know about adolescent cognitive development and decide that kids of that age are more than old enough to know exactly what they are doing and its consequences, that they are not worth rehabilitating, must be treated as adults, and should be remanded ASAP to prison for life.

What is wrong with us?

As of last Spring, an estimated 2,594 juveniles are serving life without parole in the United States. Of those, 71 were 13 or 14 years old when they committed the crime.

Here’s a chart of the numbers for each state. Of course, California’s numbers have just gone up.

And just to remind you, with this juvie LWOP policy the United States is alone in all the world.

---

AND IN OTHER NEWS….IMMIGRATION DETAINEES MUST BE PROVIDED LAWYERS

The Tuesday LA Times has an editorial that is dead on. Here’s a clip:

In 2009, President Obama vowed to overhaul the nation’s immigration detention system. Since then, his administration has taken some steps to deliver on that promise, such as providing detainees improved access to medical care and closing troubled facilities. But it has yet to provide the most meaningful fix: ensuring that indigent immigrants in detention have access to legal counsel.

Until now, federal courts have held that only criminal defendants are entitled to court-appointed counsel. An immigration case, even if it involves detention, is a civil matter. As a result, the vast majority of detainees, including children and the mentally ill, are forced to represent themselves in immigration court.

This month, however, a federal judge in Los Angeles could help bring some fairness to the system. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee has been asked to decide whether to grant class-action status in a lawsuit brought on behalf of mentally disabled immigrant detainees who don’t have the money to pay for legal representation. If Gee certifies the class under the Rehabilitation Act, which requires the government to accommodate people with disabilities, it could help hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

That would be a great start. But much more is needed to ensure that all detainees are afforded fair treatment under the law.

---

NOTE: Light blogging today and tomorrow while I finish a project and attend the PEN USA literary awards.