 "Photo: Tory Ellis, Graphics Editor and Assistant Photo Editor")
Why is it that youth who cannot drink alcohol, gamble or even drive a car can be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime? Following the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2005 case of Roper v. Simmons that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment as “cruel and unusual punishment” for juveniles under the age of 18, two current cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, are now questioning the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for minors in non-homicide cases. Although the argument that the attorneys in both cases are offering, which is for the categorical evaluation of age in sentencing is difficult to defend (should a 17 and three months year-old receive a less harsh sentence than an 18 year-old for the same crime?), life without parole for minors seems too harsh.
From a moral standpoint, the problem with sentencing an adolescent to life without parole is evident. Naiveté, aggressiveness, impulsivity and susceptibility to mob mentality are characteristics of adolescence that can drive youths to commit criminal acts when the right societal checks are absent. Both Sullivan and Graham acted in cohort with others, and Sullivan was the youngest of his group. The likelihood of recidivism also decreases with age, which makes rehabilitation rather than punishment a more appealing option for minors and also raises the question of whether the 30- or 50-year old rotting away in jail today is the same person as the teenager originally sentenced many years ago.
Both boys’ sentences also seem a little unfair in context. The median sentence for rape in the country is 10 years, but Sullivan, who was convicted of raping an elderly woman during a home invasion, was sentenced to life without parole. In fact, the prosecutor actually asked for a 30 year sentence, but the judge decided on a harsher sentence. In Graham’s case, his two cohorts received disproportionately lenient sentences: one gave information to the prosecutor and was subsequently sentenced to 11 years in prison, and the other received a life without parole sentence for homicide. Graham, who did not commit homicide, received an equally severe sentence as the one who did.
Life without parole for minors is also problematic beyond the context of Sullivan and Graham’s cases because it leaves young victims of unfair sentences with no way out. Statistics have shown a correlation between race and harsher sentences. Black and Latino children are more likely to be sent to adult courts than white children who commit comparable crimes. Once in adult court, age consideration is no longer required, so someone who is 13 can receive the same sentence as a 30 year-old. A Human Rights Watch study conducted in 2005 also found that black kids are ten times more likely to be sentenced to life without parole as whites.
A life without parole sentence for a minor tells youth that society has given up on them and that they have no hope of reform. Of course, serious crime deserves serious punishment, but locking away such individuals for life will not solve the problem. A better way is to help the youth rehabilitate and bring them back into society as role models against crime. Minors like Graham and Sullivan are too young and too inexperienced for society to throw them by the wayside. Justice is necessary, but even punishment should have its limits.
Be the first to comment on this article!