SPONSORED BY:

18 And a Life To Go

The U.S. is the only country that sentences juveniles to life in prison without parole. Will the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional?

Joe Sullivan and Terrence Graham, for juvenile sentencing story
Courtesy Equal Justice Initiative
(Left) Joe Sullivan in 2007 when he was 31 years old. Sullivan is wheelchair-bound due to multiple sclerosis. (Right) Terrance Graham in October 2002, two months before his 16th birthday. Graham is now 22 years old.
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Iraq doesn't do it. North Korea considers it a cruel form of punishment. But in the United States sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole is legal.

But on November 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up two cases involving juvenile offenders in Florida who claim their life sentences for rape and robbery violate the cruel-and-unusual-punishment clauses of the Constitution.

There are about 2,500 juveniles (ranging in age from 13 to 17) currently sentenced to life in prison in the United States. No other country in the world currently has adolescents serving this sentence, reports the Frank C. Newman International Human Rights Law Clinic.

"We aren't saying that all of these kid offenders should be let out," says Connie de la Vega, Professor of Law at University of San Francisco School of Law. "They should be given a chance to rehabilitate themselves. They should be given the chance to apply for parole, even if it's after 10 or 15 years."

The cases the Supreme Court will hear are Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, involving cases of rape and robbery by a then 13-year-old and a 17-year-old, respectively. If the court determines these sentences are unconstitutional, Joe Sullivan, now 33, and Terrance Graham, now 22, currently serving life sentences without the possibility of parole, could each be granted a new hearing to determine a revised sentence.

If the court finds the sentence unconstitutional, it could give them the right to go before a parole board to determine whether they are fit to assimilate back into society. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card, human-rights advocates are quick to note. Some juvenile offenders could still be forced to spend life behind bars, while others are set free early. "We don't let them vote or enter into contracts, but we are subjecting kids to sentences that are for a mature adult," says de la Vega. "I think the red flag is, How could we be the only country in the world doing this? Why are we treating our kids so badly?"

But some argue that juveniles should be forced to serve "adult time" when they commit serious crimes. "Most juveniles don't rape, rob, and kill. At some point, it has to be about holding people responsible," says Scott Burns, executive director of National District Attorneys Association, which filed a brief supporting the constitutionality of the sentence.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: libralracist @ 11/23/2009 12:30:43 PM

    Just bunch of racist liberal lawyers trying to *** up America again. These lawyers hide their *** racist ass behind promoting affirmative action. If these *** lawyer care they should put their money where their fat ass mouth is. These lawyers should pay for the cost of rehabilitation programs, psychologists and put food on their table. They just *** open their big mouths all time.

  • Posted By: carpe_diem @ 11/18/2009 2:02:53 PM

    Au contraire jennjenn, fear of punishment keeps us all in line. If any of us could just walk into a store and take anything we wanted - without fear of punishment - we would. If you are old enough to drive, what keeps you wearing a seat-belt? Fear of that hefty fine that's what.

    Also, 100% of these miscreants were given a trial and were found guilty and sentenced by people who would have rather found another solution. Sometimes you just have to lock them away because you are certain they will harm someone else down the line. They are not capable of being let free ??? ever.

    And as for Retribution ??? it means pay-back. Simple concept. Effective concept. Bottom line, they did the crime now man-up and take the punishment.

  • Posted By: jennjenn8372 @ 11/12/2009 8:08:30 PM

    Actually, research has discovered that harsher punishments are not the deterrent most people would believe. If you'd like to enhance your knowledge, NYT has a great article detailing the research. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/business/economy/04view.html
    Sadly, of the three reasons to punish criminals (deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution), the third seems to be the most prevalent reason for Americans. Is that really what the justice system should be based on?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now