 "Photo: Tory Ellis, Graphics Editor and Assistant Photo Editor")
Joe Sullivan will forever remember the day, twenty years ago, that he ransacked a home in West Pensacola, Florida and raped its 76 year-old elderly resident at the age of thirteen. Likewise, Teddy Graham will never forget that he robbed a man at gunpoint five years ago at the age of seventeen. They will not forget, because the crimes that they committed put their lives on hold permanently—they were both sentence to life in prison without parole.
Sullivan and Graham, now 33 and 22, are bargaining for redemption. Both have filed separate appeals for the right to gain parole. If successful, the appeal would not only give Sullivan and Graham opportunities for freedom, but also protect future criminals who are under 18 from receiving life-sentence without parole. Careful scrutiny will render that such a decision will only render the U.S. Justice system vulnerable to subjectivity and questioning.
Lawyers are questioning the legitimacy and fairness of the terms based on the claim that the original sentences are examples of cruel and unusual punishment banned by the Eighth Amendment. Their reasoning is such: since both Sullivan and Graham were minors when they committed the crimes, their moral judgments were susceptible to “youthful disabilities.” They argue that this disability compromised their moral compass and thus they should not have been given such harsh punishments. Since both were minors at the times of the crimes and are therefore more susceptible to changes in character, they deserve second-chances over other criminals who have committed similar crimes at older ages. The question in this case is, at what point in their mental development should human beings be held accountable for their own judgment? Where should we draw the line?
Growing up, we learn that there are lines we do not cross. These lines range from innocent childhood transgressions, such as playing with scissors, cutting each other’s hair or feeding vegetables to the dog, to ones with more serious consequences like cheating, lying, or cussing. Then there are still others that we are taught to never trespass—lines that if we cross would mean jail time instead of just a slap on the hand. The federal punishment system is based on the assumption of accountability: it is because we know what is “right” and “wrong” that we are held accountable for our actions. Thus criminals who have been proven to be mentally ill at the time of the crime often receive lighter terms.
The assumption that our moral compass strengthens with growth and experience makes us more accountable for our actions as we age.
It is impossible to determine where that line should lie. The strength of one’s moral values depends on one’s upbringing, education and influences. There is no physical evidence to suggest if and when one’s conscience is fully developed. For similar reasons, it is also impossible to determine where exactly the line lies. In Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words, “Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope but an adult does not?” There are neither psychological nor biological reasons to suggest that the judgment of a 17 year-old minor is substantially impaired—due to “youthful disabilities”— in comparison to that of an 18 year-old adult. Therefore any generalizations about the age beyond which one’s judgment and moral compass are fully developed and beyond which one is less susceptible to reformation, would be arbitrary and illegitimate conclusions about human nature.
Who is to determine which factors, of the many that influence the development of one’s moral values, are most important and thus should be taken into account in the consideration of one’s accountability for his or her own actions? If age succeeds as a justification for freedom, who is to refute future attempts to escape responsibility by evoking other possible justifications such as upbringing, family background and education? A Supreme Court decision in favor of second-chances for Sullivan and Graham would set a dangerous precedent for future attempts to question the authority of the federal punishment system.
Considering the difficulty in proving the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claim that age is a justification for freedom, perhaps the question is not whether or not the defendants’ assertions are true, but how they can be incorporated into the federal punishment system such that the process remains fair and just. “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” those in support of more lenient measures may argue. But as long as the objective assessment of one’s moral compass remain impossible, to incorporate arbitrary assumptions such as the correlation between age and judgment into the judicial process is to impose upon it larger margins of error and to render it more susceptible to the whim of subjectivity. In addition, to invite factors such as age into the consideration of federal punishment is to expose the authority of the justice system to questioning.
1 comments