By Caitlin Barbas
Sara Kruzman, a 35-year old inmate
at the Central California Women’s Facility is a woman sentenced to death for
killing her alleged pimp while she was a minor.[1]
Following the announcement of the upcoming parole release of Sara, national
attention has returned to the controversy surrounding juvenile sentencing as
well as the legislation and court rulings regarding this issue.
Much of this controversy comes in
the wake of the case, Miller v. Alabama,
heard by the United States Supreme Court over a year ago. In the court opinion,
released on June 25, 2012 by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court ruled that
juvenile mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole violates
the Eighth Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from
“cruel and unusual punishment.”[2]
Using the rulings of previous juvenile justice court cases, most notably Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida,
the court explained that a mandated life sentence without the possibility of
parole over looked the fundamental distinction between adults and minors.
Teenagers, the court explained are likely to be highly influenced by their
background and often cannot properly handle situations involving peer pressure.
The court further asserts this judgment, writing, “[Mandatory life without
parole for a juvenile] prevents taking into account the family and home
environment… the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of
his participation…. and the possibility of rehabilitation.”[3]
The court, however, specified that states were not required to promise release
from prison;rather, they must make the opportunity present in the case of
“maturity and rehabilitation.”[4]
Application of this ruling within
individual states’ justice systems has been slower than expected, with many
cautious about the social consequences of lighter sentencing, such as a higher
crime rate.[5]
This has resulted in numerous, non-uniform updates to state justice systems
across the nation. For example, only in September 2013 did Massachusetts revise
its general laws to include 17 year-olds in juvenile jurisdiction. Furthermore,
the Massachusetts Chief Justice of the state juvenile court system explained
that 17-year old defendants charged in the commonwealth in 2012 for any crime
would have their charges transferred to juvenile court. However, at the time of
the legislation’s passing, it was not officially ruled whether the sentences of
all current inmates serving juvenile life without parole would be reviewed.[6]
In Louisiana, we see the application of Miller
v. Alabama to current and future juveniles facing trial, similar to the
process explained in Massachusetts. However, in December of 2012, the Supreme
Court of Louisiana, in the ruling, State
v. Williams also applied the new sentencing regulations to the
pre-sentenced inmates serving life without parole for crimes committed as a
juvenile.[7]
In examining only these two states, both of
whichhave legally applied the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, we
already are able to see that there exist multiple interpretations of this case.
While the Court’s ruling that juveniles, in the present and the future, may not
be sentenced to life without parole, the Court made no clear distinction as to
whether the ruling would also apply retroactively. Should an inmate currently serving
life in prison for a crime committed as a juvenile be granted a sentence
hearing or should that inmate be bound to the procedures used during the time
their crime was committed? Furthermore, the Court cited a violation of the
Eighth Amendment in sentencing minors to mandatory life without parole;
therefore, one must question whether the individual rights of the inmates
currently serving time under this punishment are infringed upon by a state’s
decision not to review prior sentencing. These questions represent a true point
of controversy with the functionality of the American Justice System,
particularly in the juvenile system. The court’s vague rulings seem to be
problematic, as there appears to be no clear and uniform response of states to
the new decision. However, this vagueness allows the states to take into
consideration their own situation and autonomy. It is this push-and-pull which
we see defining the scene of the individual states’ juvenile justice system
following the Supreme Court Ruling on Miller v. Alabama.
[1] Associated Press, "California
Governor Allows Freedom to Woman Who Killed Pimp." Last modified October
27, 2013. Accessed October 27, 2013.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/calif-governor-allows-freedom-to-woman-who-killed-pimp.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] The New York Times, "End Mandatory
Life Sentences." Last modified September 16, 2013. Accessed October 27,
2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/opinion/end-mandatory-life-sentences.html?_r=0.
[6] Ring, Dan. The Republican Newspaper,
"17-Year-Olds to be Treated as Juveniles in Massachusetts Courts Under Law
Signed by Gov. Deval Patrick." Last modified September 18, 2013. Accessed
October 29, 2013.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/gov_deval_patrick_signs_law_to.html.
[7] Equal Justice Initiative, "Louisiana
Supreme Court Permits Retroactive Application of Miller v. Alabama." Last
modified December 28, 2012. Accessed October 28, 2013.
http://www.eji.org/node/728.
No comments:
Post a Comment